1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1520/2007 Smt. Sayra Jatia Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 22.5.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Girish Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhati, for the respondetns. ... The petitioner, a Cook, at a hostel run by Social Welfare Department has preferred this petition for writ seeking compliance of the judgment passed by this Court on 26.5.1995 in SBCivil Writ Petition No.1544/95 preferred by her. In brief facts of the case are that by the petition for writ aforesaid the petitioner claimed for regularization of her services as Cook and the same came to be allowed in the terms of the judgment given in SBCivil Writ Petition No.3453/1994 (Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.). The employer preferred a special appeal to challenge the judgment dated 26.5.1995 that came to be disposed of on 11.7.1996 by directing the respondents to determine rights of the petitioner in accordance with the scheme framed by the State Government relating to regularization of the employees working with government hostels run by Social Welfare Department. No action thereafter was taken, thus, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan 2 Civil Services Appellate Tribunal for redressal of her grievance and the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be disposed of on 27.11.2001 with a direction to submit a representation to the respondent-State for objective consideration. Accordingly, a representation was submitted by the petitioner and that came to be rejected by the Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan on 3.8.2004. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred. It is also pertinent to note that validity of the order aforesaid was also challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal but that was withdrawn with liberty to file a writ petition. The representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Director on the count that the petitioner was not in employment of the respondents on 1.5.1995. As per the petitioner she was employed with the respondents on 6.10.1993, and since then, she is continuously working with the respondents. In reply to the writ petition it is not denied by the respondents that the petitioner is not in their employment. A specific statement given by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner is continuously working as Cook. 3 In view of the fact that the petitioner was employed on 6.10.1993 and she is still working with the respondents there is no reason to accept the fact that she was not working with the respondents on 1.5.1995. The petition for writ, therefore, deserves acceptance. Accordingly, same is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh by taking her in their employment 1.5.1995. The respondents are further directed to extend all the benefits to the petitioner those are given to other similarly situated persons. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal