C. Rev. No. 57 of 2010 7.7.2010 Present: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners. This review petition has been filed by the H.R.T.C. We had rejected the writ petition No. 1694 of 2008 on 24.6.2009 filed by the original petitioner, but while rejecting the writ petition, we had passed the following order: “The petitioner has failed to bring to our notice any document to show that he was ever paid salary on daily wage basis or on monthly basis. The documents attached by him with the petition show that every month the petitioner is paid different amount depending on the number of buses he had cleaned. He cannot be said to be a daily waged employee. As such, he cannot claim regularization on the basis of the policy relied upon by him. It is not disputed by the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner has in fact been working with it since October, 1986. He has spent at least 23 years working for the Corporation. There is no complaint about the working of the petitioner. It may be true that there may not be a regular post of Washer Boy, but the petitioner can easily be adjusted against some other Class-IV post. Whether he is governed by the policy of regularization or not, it appears to us to be totally inequitable and unjustified on the part of the respondent- Corporation not to offer him regular employment till date. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent-Corporation that as and when a post of Class-IV employee falls vacant in Shimla or Kinnaur districts, the respondent- Corporation shall offer employment to the petitioner against the said post.” It is submitted that the original writ petitioner could not be appointed as Class-IV employee since he does not fulfill the requisite minimum educational qualifications. In this case we had given direction to provide appointment to the petitioner on humanitarian ground since admittedly for 23 years the writ petitioner had been working as Washer Boy with the H.R.T.C. This direction to give employment to the petitioner as and when a Class-IV post falls vacant was given in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, feel that in case there is a clause for relaxation then this is a fit case where the H.R.T.C. should consider the petitioner by relaxing the educational qualifications especially since the writ petitioner has been working without complaint for more than 24 years. The review petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. However, this shall not be treated as a precedent in any other matter since this order has been passed on humanitarian grounds strictly keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Dasti copy. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 7th July, 2010 ( V.K. Ahuja ) (VT) Judge.