// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.212/1997 Sulatu Lal Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 18.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri D.P. Sharma for petitioner Dr. R.K. Sharma for respondents #### This writ petition was filed by the petitioner way back in the year 1997 that the respondents be directed to consider his case for regularisation on the post of Ward Boy/Class-IV. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was initially appointed on 10.7.1984 on the post of Class- IV/Ward Boy and since then he was working till 1.4.1990 when his services were suddenly terminated by the respondents. At his instance, reference for industrial dispute was made to the Labour Court, Bharatpur, which by its order dated 21.1.1993 held the termination as illegal and directed his reinstatement with // 2 // consequential benefits. Petitioner was instated in service on 12.2.1996 and since then he is continuously working with the respondents. It is contended that petitioner is discharging the regular duties for full duration of the office. However, in fact he is working for more than 8 hours a day and yet the respondents have illegally described his appointment as part time. Learned counsel submits that this would fall within the ambit of begar prescribed by Article 23 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner approached the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act claiming that he should be paid minimum wages. The Payment of Wages Authority, Bharatpur vide its order dated 15.10.1992 directed the respondents to pay to the petitioner minimum wages. The Pay of Wages Authority did not find the contention of the petitioner proved that petitioner was working on part time basis. The order of Payment of Wages Authority dated 15.10.1992 has become final. The petitioner had already worked for more than 12 years with the respondents when he filed the writ petition and therefore it should be accepted that he worked for more than 10 years and subsequently also after filing of the // 3 // writ petition, he would work for 13 more years. The respondents have given Minimum Wages in terms of the order of the Payment of Wages Authority. It is contended that the Government has already taken note of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi – (2006) 4 SCC 1, to frame a Scheme and accordingly issued a Notification dated 08.07.2009 amending the relevant Rules by providing one time regularization of those, irregularly appointed on duly sanctioned posts and completed ten years service on 10.04.2006, without intervention of any Court or Tribunal, and continuously working as such on the date of commencement of the amendments Rules. Even if the interim order passed by this Court on 17.1.1997 is concerned, the fact remains that from 1984 onwards, till he filed the writ petition, he already completed 10 years of service and this would bring his case within the purview of that scheme. It is therefore prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularsiation particularly when he worked with them for 25 years. // 4 // Dr. R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents submits that appointment of the petitioner was made on part time basis. Even if the award by which his termination is held to be illegal was accepted then the reinstatement was made on the same status on which he was prior to reinstatement. The appointment of the petitioner cannot be taken on regular basis. He was being paid on part time basis and thereafter the respondents started paying him minimum wages pursuant to the order passed by Payment of Wages Authority. In the light of submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make a suitable representation to the Government. In view of the aforesaid Notification dated 08.07.2009, the Government shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of six months from the date a copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. RS/