1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.55/2008 State of Rajsthan & ors. V/s Gopal Lal Sharma 23.7.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.Bharat Vyas for the appellants. Mr.K.N.Gupta for the respondent. Heard Mr.Bharat Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.N.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent both in limitation application and also on merits. Delay in filing this appeal is condoned. This appeal is directed against order dated 1st May, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ application no.6015/1990 whereby and whereunder the writ application was partly allowed directing the authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner for regularization in terms of Rule 25(10) of the Rajasthan Ministerial Staff Subordinate Service Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1957”). The writ-petitioner, who is said to have been appointed as LDC in 1967, had approached the authorities from time to time for regularization and also for enhancement of his dearness allowance etc. The matter was considered, but somehow or the other, though his dearness allowance was enhanced, he was not regularized in view of the Rules of 1957. He ultimately approached this Court by filing writ application for issuance of mandamus directing the State authorities for his regularization 2 giving rise to the impugned order. Undisputedly, the writ petitioner was initially appointed in Devasthan Department with all consequential benefits in 1967. He was allowed to work on the post of LDC uninterruptedly and ultimately on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired in 2003 after rendering 36 years of service. The learned Single Judge of this Court however on consideration of pleadings of the parties and seeing the continuance of writ petitioner in services for about 36 years, directed the authorities to consider the case of writ- petitioner for regularization mainly for the purpose of consequential benefits under Rule 25(10) of the Rules of 1957. Mr.Bharat Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants however tried to impress upon the court by saying that appointment of writ-petitioner was de-hors the law inasmuch as neither the post was advertised nor rules prescribed for such appointment were followed and therefore, initial appointment itself was void ab-initio. It is further submitted by learned counsel that writ petitioner though continued in service he could not have claimed for his regularization owing to the nature of his engagement on the post of LDC. On going through the writ application and also the reply filed on behalf of the State-respondents, it becomes admitted fact that writ petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC in 1967 and he was allowed to function and at the same time, his dearness allowance etc. was also increased and at no point of time any notice was served on him for 3 his termination finding his appointment void ab initio. After efflux of time, when the petitioner superannuated attaining the age of superannuation, in our view, these questions cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage as it would be opposed to the principles of equity. The State authorities by allowing him to continue in service had also acquiesced in the infirmities, if any, in his appointment at the initial stage. In this background of the case, the learned Single Judge was wholly justified in issuing writ of mandamus. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar