SBCWP NO.6527/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6527/1997. Govind Ram Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- May 6, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri R.A. Katta for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Mathur, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that even if he was initially appointed with the respondents on 23/2/1985 but the respondents have so far not granted him regular pay scale in 750-940 as revised from time to time. It was further prayed that respondents be directed to grant semi- permanent and permanent status to the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner has in this connection referred to the cases of Bahiru Ram Choudhary, Suresh and Mangal Ram, who were appointed with the petitioner and their services have been regularized. Yet, services of the petitioner have not been regularized and he SBCWP NO.6527/97. 2 has not been paid the benefit of the regular pay scale of the post of Beldar. Learned counsel submitted that the Government of Rajasthan has recently by notification dated 8/7/2009 amended the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2009 to provide for regularization of such temporary employees who have completed ten years service on 10/4/2006 without intervention of any Court or Tribunal and working as such on the date of commencement of Amendment Rules. Otherwise also, petitioner's case is fully covered under these rules. Hence, this writ petition with the prayer that respondents may be directed to consider case of the petitioner and grant him benefit of regular pay scale. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and argued that initially appointment of the petitioner was made for the period from 11/1/1986 to 23/2/1985 and suddenly his services were terminated against which, he earlier filed writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of limitation requiring petitioner to approach the labour court. This writ petition cannot be therefore directly filed. SBCWP NO.6527/97. 3 Learned counsel for petitioner rejoined and submitted that even after the dismissal of the writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner on the ground of alternative remedy, respondents have continued him in services. In fact, ever since then, respondents continued the petitioner in services for more than 10 years. He is therefore entitled to the benefit of regularization because there is no interim-order obtaining in the present writ petition for his continuation in service. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is presently posted in the office of Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Raj Department. Petitioner is being paid only minimum of the pay scale and benefit of increments and other allowances. Having regard to the facts aforestated, I find that petitioner is indeed continuing with the respondents which fact has been admitted by the respondents and this petition is pending before this court since 1997. Earlier to that also, petitioner has been working with the respondents atleast from 1987 which date the respondents have admitted. In any case, he served with the respondents for more than period SBCWP NO.6527/97. 4 of 10 years. This writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to make a representation to respondents for considering his case in view of the Government Notification dated 8/7/2009 and the respondents, on their turn, shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before them. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J. anil