JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that he should be allowed regular pay scale of the Driver plus other benefits admissible on this post under the Rules. He has also prayed for a direction to pay arrears of claim of the salary forthwith. 2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as a Driver on work-charge basis with effect from 11-9-87 and was kept in leave reserve. He was allotted various type of vehicles from time to time to drive but he was paid at the rate of Rs. 25/- per day only. The petitioner's case further is that from the date of his initial appointment till date, he has been discharging his duties regularly as driver with utmost efficiency, integrity and devotion. His submission is that he made repeated representations for regularising him on the post of the Driver by when he insisted more, instead of giving him order of regularisation his services were terminated vide orders dated 8.9.88. The petitioner challenged the order of termination on this count. Ultimately the order of termination was set aside by this court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3135/88 and he was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. The petitioner's grievance is that even now he is not being paid regular pay scale of Driver. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why it should not be admitted and allowed. 3. In reply to the case set up the respondent is that the petitioner worked on work charge basis at the rate of Rs. 25/- per day and was kept in leave reserve as alleged. Respondent's case is that petitioner's service were contracted on the post of cleaner for a period of three months w.e.f. 3-9-88 at the fixed rate of Rs. 750/- per month vide order, dated 13-4-88 and his services could be terminated even earlier than three months if the regularly selected persons under Jaipur Development Authority Employees (Recruitment and General Conditions) Regulations 1984 would have been available. 750/- per month vide order, dated 13-4-88 and his services could be terminated even earlier than three months if the regularly selected persons under Jaipur Development Authority Employees (Recruitment and General Conditions) Regulations 1984 would have been available. Respondent has placed Ex R/1 on record to show that the petitioner was appointed Cleaner vide, order dated 13-4-88, The petitioner in rejoinder has controverted the defence taken by the respondents in its reply and stated that from the very beginning he was appointed on work charge basis as a Driver and the order dated 13-4-88 was passed subsequently to camouflage his appointment and to deprive him of his legitimate right. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire record. 5. At the out-set it may be observed that the conduct of the functionaries of the JDA in this case has been far from satisfactory. In dealing with cases of low paid employees it does not behave the senior officers to pass orders in manner passed in this case, In reply to the writ petition respondent did not deny that the petitioner joined the respondent's department on 11.9.87. What has been stated in the reply is that he joined as a leave reserve. It has not been deliberately mentioned whether as a Driver or a Cleaner. Half heartedly it had to be admitted that work of the driver was being taken from him from the date he has joined the JDA. 6. Once it is admitted that petitioner is working in JDA since September 1987 it was obligatory for the respondent to have placed on record the order then passed. The order, dated 3-4-88, Annexure R/1, is an order which has been passed subsequently with a view to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate right as is apparent from the perusal of Annexure 3. Annexure R. 3 discloses that the petitioner was functioning as a driver in the month of March, 88. This passing of the order dated 13.4.88 with retrospective operation could only be with a view to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate claim. Passing of appointment order with retrospective operation have always been depricated and can be held to be mala fide in law. This passing of the order dated 13.4.88 with retrospective operation could only be with a view to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate claim. Passing of appointment order with retrospective operation have always been depricated and can be held to be mala fide in law. When the petitioner insisted for his legitimate dues, his services were terminated, which termination had to be set aside by the Division Bench of this court and despite that the respondent has not paid him the wages of the post of Driver and instead came out with a defence that he had been appointed as a Cleaner vide order, dated 3.4.88. I have already stated above that the order dated 13.4.88 is not an order in the eye of law being operative with retrospective operation against the factual position and is thus malafide. When it is proved that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in respondent's office as is clearly borne out from Annexure 3. I have therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of a Driver as a work charge and he continued to be so in same post but without being paid regular pay scale. Since the petitioner has continuously been working as Driver from the date of his entry into the department till date without any break it would be in interest of justice to allow him the minimum of the pay scale of the Driver along with other benefits admissible under the Rules w.e.f. date of his reinstatement in pursuance of the order of this court. 7. The result of the aforesaid discussions is that this writ petition is allowed. Respondent is directed to pay to the respondent salary minimum of the regular Pay Scale of the Driver with all benefits admissible under the Rules, w.e.f. 1.11.88 that is from next day of the order of termination of the petitioner dated 8.9.88 was set aside. In view of the fact that the petitioner is a low paid employee and has been dragged to this court repeatedly, the writ petition is allowed with cost which is assessed at Rs. 2000/- The arrears as well as cost shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of this order. Copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, JDA.Petition Allowed with Costs. *******