1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6452/2002. : : Kailash Chand Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 27.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Mahesh Gupta for the petitioners. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who approached this Court in the year 2002 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to treat them as regular employees and pay them salary in the regular pay scale and in the alternative direct the respondents to regularise them with all consequential benefits. Shri Mahesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners were initially engaged in the services of the respondents for the year 1983 they are being paid only consolidated salary of Rs.1400/-, which is lessor than the minimum wages. Learned counsel relied on 2 the judgment of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.5639/2002 : Ramji Lal Mali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. wherein on consideration of similar case pertaining to employees of the Municipal Board, Bassi it was held as under :- “In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, though, no positive direction of regularization of petitioners can be given but at the same time in view of observations of the Supreme Court in para 53 of the judgment, it should be a case in favour of the petitioners for consideration of their case even excluding the period of stay as the petitioners had completed more than 10 years of service prior to filing of the writ petition. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The petitioners are required to make representation to the respondents within a period of one month. Respondents are directed to consider their case for regularization as a one time measure in terms of the observation made by the Supreme Court in para 53 of Umadevi supra within a period of three months thereafter and decide the representation by a detailed and speaking order. Till such representation of the petitioners is decided on expiry of four months as aforesaid, services of the petitioners shall not be discriminated." Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that in aforesaid judgment there can be no direction for 3 regularisation of the petitioners in the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi : 2006 (4) SCC 1. It was argued that the petitioners were initially engaged on daily wages and were paid consolidated salary. Having regard to the facts of the petitioners and keeping in view of the fact that the petitioners have been working with the respondents for last more than 10 years the respondents ought to consider their case in the light of observation made in Uma Devi (supra) which they seeks to rely. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of in the light of aforesaid judgment. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.35.