ASOPA, J. - (1.) BY the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners, who are daily wager employee working since more than two decade, are seeking appropriate writ order or direction for regular pay scale of Class-IV and further prayed for other benefits of the regular service. The said prayer also amounts to regularisation in service.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners have been employed on daily wages almost 20 years back and on filing the writ petition, they have been allowed minimum of the pay scale in the year 1990. From the year 1990, they are working in the minimum pay scale. The respondents have stated that the petitioners have not been regularly appointed and their appointment is irregular, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefits of the services. Submission of counsel for the petitioners is that the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in para 15 & 53 of the judgment delivered in State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 directed the authorities concerned to take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of irregularly appointed, irrespective of the fact that their appointments are irregular (not illegal ). The said para 53 is further interpreted by the Supreme Court in case Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union vs. Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited & Anr. , Civil Appeal Nos. 2027/2000 decided on 26. 7. 2006. Para 15 & 53 of the judgment in State of Karnataka (supra) are as follows:- " 15. Even at the threshold, it is necessary to keep in mind the distinction between regularization and conferment of permanence in service jurisprudence. In State of Mysore vs. S. V. Narayanappa (1967 (1) SCR 128), this Court stated that it was a mis-conception to consider that regularization meant permanence. In R. N. Nanjundappa vs. T. Thimmiah & Anr. (1972) 2 SCR 799), this Court dealt with an argument that regularization would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment. This Court stated:- " Counsel on behalf of the respondent contended that regularization would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment, whereas counsel on behalf of the State contended that regularization did not mean permanence but that it was a case of regularization of the rules under Article 309. Both the contentions are fallacious. If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the constitution, illegality cannot be regularized. Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority, but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules. " 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S. V. Narayanappa (supra), R. N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B. N. Nagarajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. " Time was granted to counsel for the State on 25. 1. 2007, 19. 2. 2007 & 29. 2. 2007 to make submission on the aforesaid issue of regularisation. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that so far no scheme has been framed by the State as directed in the said judgment for irregular appointed persons.
(3.) HEARD counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties. Since no steps for framing the scheme as one time measure has been taken by the State Government so far despite expiry of six months as directed by the Supreme Court in para 53 of State of Karnataka (supra), which has resulted in denial of regularization of the daily wagers working in the State of Rajasthan. In view of judgment of Supreme Court, the writ petitions stand disposed of with the direction to the State Government to frame the scheme as one time measure as directed by the Supreme Court as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate order of regularization of services of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, who have been irregularly appointed within a period of six months from today. . ;