1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.40/2008 State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Chanda Date of Judgment :: September 11, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. B.L. Avasthi, Addl.Govt.Counsel for appellants. Mr. Deepak Singh Mehta for the respondent. *** Heard learned counsel for the parties. Upon consideration of the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in not filing this appeal in time. Delay in filing this appeal, therefore, is condoned. Matter is heard on merits. This appeal challenges the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.5.2007 whereby the writ petition of the respondent has been disposed of with direction to the appellant-State to frame the scheme as one time measure in terms of the directions of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate orders with regard to regularization of such of the irregularly appointed employees who have continued in service for ten years and more, within six months. This Court by its order dated 20.2.2008 directed the Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan to file affidavit whether such scheme has been framed by the State Government. Affidavit has been filed by the Chief Secretary to say that no such scheme has been framed. 2 Mr. B.L. Avasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has referred the said affidavit and argued that similar judgment passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.454/2007 dated 16.8.2004 was challenged before the Supreme Court by the appellant and therein the directions issued by the Court for framing of the scheme and payment of salary in regular scale was stayed vide order of the Supreme Court dated 17.11.2005. The State of Rajasthan has, therefore, not framed any scheme in terms of the aforementioned directions of the Supreme Court in para 53 of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (supra). On facts of the case, we find that the respondent herein was appointed as Ward Maid in SMS Government Hospital, Jaipur on 1.5.1987. Her services were terminated on 1.7.1989. She challenged the order of termination which was quashed by judgment of this Court dated 26.3.1993 in her earlier writ petition no.3569/1989 holding her entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Since regular salary was not paid to her, she had to again file writ petition being SBCWP No.4313/1994 which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 19.9.1994 with direction to the appellant-State to pass suitable orders on her representation. Since then, the respondent is continuing but it appears that she has not been so far paid regular pay scale and benefit of regularization has not been given to her. The case of the respondent is that services of persons junior to her have been regularized by the appellants. Instances of Ramesh Chand Saini, Smt. Sandhya Devi, Aslam, Smt. Manhor Bai, Smt. Gendi Devi, Rahimuddin, Mewa Ram, Uttam Chand, Rajendra Singh, Ashok Kumar, Abdul Kuddus etc. have been given. With 3 respect to them, namely, Ramesh Chand Saini, learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that his services were regularized pursuant to judgment passed by this Court in his writ petition, but there is no explanation forthcoming as regards the other employees. Perusal of the operative part of the impugned judgment reveals that the directions of the learned Single Judge to the appellant-State is entirely in conformity with the directions given by the Supreme Court in para 53 of Uma Devi's case that the State Government and its instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed employees, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that are required to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. Arguments that are being made by the appellant- State before us indicate that no steps have been taken by the State of Rajasthan in regard to either of the directions given to them. Neither have the State Government framed the scheme for regularization of irregularly appointed daily wagers who have been continuing in their various departments for more than ten years nor have they undertaken to make regular recruitments to fill up those posts that are required to be filled up, in case where temporary or daily wagers are now being employed. Though reliance on the interim order passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.311/2005 is made, but we find that the said interim order was passed in the context of judgment of the 4 Division Bench of this Court dated 16.8.2004 which was passed in a set of seven identical special appeals by the Division Bench of this Court. The judgment in Uma Devi's case was rendered much subsequent thereto and was delivered by the Supreme Court on 10.4.2006, which is subsequent not only to the aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench but also the interim order of the Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-