Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-The common issue raised in all these cases is the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Regulation of Appointments to Public Services Rationalisation of Staff Act, 1999 (hereinafter called Act of 1999). Various provisions of the Act more particularly Sections 2(v), 9, 11 and 19 of the Act are being assailed as ultra vires. Consequent relief has been asked in each petition, as we shall notice later on, to quash the directions issued and order passed in pursuance there of under the provisions of Act of 1999. Brief View of Impugned Provisions 2. As per its preamble, the Rajasthan State Legislature enacted the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 (hereinafter called, ‘the Act of 1999’) to regulate appointments in the public service and prohibit irregular appointments in offices and establishments under the control of the State Government, local authorities, public corporations and Universities etc. 3. In brief , the scheme of the Act is that all services in any office established under the State Government, local authorities, a Govt. company or undertaking wholly owned or controlled by the State Govt., a body established under any law made by the legislature of the State whether incorporated or not, including a University and any other body established by the State Government or a society registered under any law relating to the registration of societies for the time being in force and receiving funds from the State Government either fully or partly for its maintenance, or any educational institution whether registered or not but receiving aid from the State Government have been treated as ‘Public Service’ for the purposes of the Act of 1999, Providing this enlarged definition of’public service’ under Section 2(v), the Act defined ‘Daily Wage employee’ under Section 2(u) and considered all appointments other than of those who are selected and appointed on a sanctioned post in accordance with the relevant rules on a regular basis to be ‘daily wage employees’ for the purposes of the Act. 4. With these premise, under Section 4(1) the Act prohibits appointment of any person in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade as ‘a daily wage employee’. 4. With these premise, under Section 4(1) the Act prohibits appointment of any person in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade as ‘a daily wage employee’. However, it made an exception under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 by making a provision that no urgent temporary appointment shall be made in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade except with the prior permission of the competent authority and such appointments shall have to be consistent with such conditions as may be imposed by such competent authority. The competent authority was authorised to lay down the conditions under which alone any urgent temporary appointments could be made. 5. Under Section 5, creation of any post in any office or establishment relating to public service was made subject to the previous sanction of the competent authority and appointments made on a post created without the previous sanction of the competent authority was declared to be invalid under Section 5(2) of the Act. Such appointments were subjected to the restrictions/prohibitions contained in Sections 8, 9 & 15 of the Act of 1999. 6. Section 8 inter-alia provides that the Treasury Officer/Sub Treasury Officer or Accounts Officer or any other officer or authority who is charged with the responsibility of passing the salary bill shall not pass such first bill of any person appointed to public service in violation of Section 7 or Section 4(2) of the Act of 1999, 7. Asnoticed above, Sub-section (2) of Section 4 ordains that urgent temporary appointment in any public service henceforth shall be made only with the prior permission of the competent authority and subject to conditions imposed by him. Section 7 is captioned as “Regulation of recruitment”. Recruitments have been categorised into three classes. 8. Thus, providing for creation of new posts subject to the sanction of competent authority and urgent temporary appointments also having been made subject to the previous sanction of the competent authority and classifying the permissible recruitments, imposed the sanction against the appointments made in contravention of Sections 4 & 7 as well as prohibiting regularisation of the employees defined as Daily Wage Employees in a public service as defined under Section 2(u) and (v) of the Act under Section 9. The Act also envisaged termination of employees defined as Daily Wage employees. 9. The Act also envisaged termination of employees defined as Daily Wage employees. 9. Section 10 named a large number of Authorities, authorising them to issue direction in terms of the provisions of the Act to their respective subordinates and non-compliance to that direction was made an actionable misconduct. 10. The Act also made a provision for abatement of the existing claims for regular appointment of all daily wage employees and persons appointed on an urgent temporary basis and closed all remedial avenues to persons aggrieved with such orders. 11. It will be apposite to reproduce relevant provisions of the Act hereunder; Section 2 (ii) “daily wage employee” means any person who is employed in any public service on the basis of payment of daily wages and includes a person employed, on the basis of nominal muster roll or consolidated pay either on full time or part time or piece rate basis, or as a work charged employees, and also includes any other similar category of employees, by whatever designation called, other than, those who are selected and appointed on a sanctioned post in accordance with the relevant rules on a regular basis. 2(v) “Public service” means services in any office or establishment .(a) the State Government; .(b) a local authority; .(c) a Government Company or undertaking wholly owned or control led by the State Government; .(d) a body established under any law made by the Legislature of the State whether incorporated or not, including a University; and .(e) anyother body established by the State Government or a society registered under any law relating to the registration of societies for the time being in force and receiving funds form the State Government either fully or partly for its maintenance, or any educational institution whether registered or not but receiving aid from the State Government. Explanation - For the purpose of this clause engagement of persons on muster rolls in respect of works for reliefs against natural calamities shall not be deemed to be public service. 4. Prohibition of daily wage appointments and regulation of temporary appointments.(1) The appointment of any person in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade as a daily wage employee shall be prohibited. 4. Prohibition of daily wage appointments and regulation of temporary appointments.(1) The appointment of any person in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade as a daily wage employee shall be prohibited. (2) No urgent temporary appointment shall be made in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade without the prior permission of the competent authority and such appointments shall also be consistent with such conditions as may be imposed by the competent authority. 5. Prohibition of creation of Posts.-(1) No post shall be created in any office or establishment relating to a public service without the previous sanction of the competent authority. (2) Any appointment made to any post created in violation of Sub-section (1) shall be invalid and the provisions of Sections 8, 9 and 15 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such appointments. 6. Prohibition of revision of pay, allowances, perquisites, honorarium, compensatory allowances etc.-No revision of pay, allowances, perquisites, honorarium, compensatory allowances etc. in respect of any employee or elected of nominated member, chairperson or any office bearer etc. of the establishments or offices mentioned under Section 3 of this Act, shall be made without the approval of competent authority. 7. Regulation of recruitment-No recruitment or appointment other than those referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 4, in any public service to any post in any class, category or grade shall be made. (a) from the panel of candidates selected and recommended for appointment by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission where the post is within the purview of the said Commission; or .(b) froma panel prepared by a Selection Committee constituted for the purpose in accordance with the relevant rules or orders issued in that behalf; or .(c) whererecruitment or appointment otherwise than in accordance with Clauses (a) and (b) is permissible, from the candidates having the requisite qualifications and in accordance with the relevant rules and/or orders. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing in this section shall apply to compassionate appointments made in favour of son/daughter/spouse of any person employed in public service who dies in harness in accordance with the relevant rules and/or orders issued from time to time. 8. Billsnot to be passed. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing in this section shall apply to compassionate appointments made in favour of son/daughter/spouse of any person employed in public service who dies in harness in accordance with the relevant rules and/or orders issued from time to time. 8. Billsnot to be passed. - The Treasury Officer/Sub Treasury Officer of Accounts Officer or any other officer of authority who is charged with the responsibility of passing the salary bill shall not pass such first bill of any person appointed to public service unless a certificate issued by the Appointing Authority to the effect that appointment has been made in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 or Sub-section. (2) of Section 4 is attached to the salary bill of the appointee concerned. 9. Bar to regularisation of services. - No person who is a daily wage employee and no person who is appointed on an urgent temporary basis and is continuing as such at the commencement of this Act shall have or shall be deemed ever to have a right to claim for regularisation of services on any ground whatsoever and the services of such person shall be liable to be terminated at any time with due notice: Provided that in the case of workmen falling within the scope of sec, 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act No. 14 of 1947) retrenchment compensation as may be payable under the said Act shall be paid in case of termination of services by way of retrenchment: Provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to the workmen governed by Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act No. 14 of 1947). Explanation. - For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the termination of services under this section shall not be deemed to be dismissal or removal form service but shall only amount to retrenchment or termination simplicitor, not amounting to any punishment. 10. Power to give directions-For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act, it shall competent for the State Government, the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the Director of Inspection, the Director of Local Fund Audit Department, the concerned Chief Account Officer, Financial Advisor/Senior Accounts Officer etc. 10. Power to give directions-For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act, it shall competent for the State Government, the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the Director of Inspection, the Director of Local Fund Audit Department, the concerned Chief Account Officer, Financial Advisor/Senior Accounts Officer etc. or Head of the Department of the government of local authority to issue such directions as may be deemed fit to their subordinates and the subordinates shall comply with such directions and where any subordinate functionary is guilty of non-compliance with such directions, it shall be deemed that such functionary is guilty of misconduct and shall be liable to be proceeded against under the disciplinary rules applicable to them. 11. Abatement of claims. -Notwithstanding anything contained in any Judgment , decree or order of any civil Court, Tribunal or other authority, the claims for regular appointment of all daily wage employees and persons appointed on any urgent temporary basis, shall stand abated and .(a) nosuit or other proceedings shall be instituted or maintained in any civil Court, Tribunal or other authority by the daily wage or temporary appointees against the State Government or any other employer of public services specified under Sub-clauses (b) to (e) f Clause (v) of Section 2 for regularisation of the services; no civil Court shall enforce any decree or order directing the regularisation of the services of such persons; and .(c) all suits or other proceedings pending in any civil Court or Tribunal claiming the regularisation of services shall abate. 12. With these substantive provisions, ancillary provisions were also made befalling the consequences on persons or authorities acting in contravention of the provisions of the act in the matter of giving appointments in violation of Section 4 & 7 of the Actor regularisation of services, and not terminating the services of daily wage employees or urgent temporary basis in terms of Section 9 by way of making it punishable offence as well as the subject matter of departmental action as a case of misconduct. The provisions of Sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 deal with such consequences with which we are not presently concerned. However, relevant for the purposes is to notice Section 19, which gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over all other laws, Judgment s, decrees or orders of any Court for the time being in force, reads as under:Section. However, relevant for the purposes is to notice Section 19, which gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over all other laws, Judgment s, decrees or orders of any Court for the time being in force, reads as under:Section. 19 Act to override other laws. - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any rule, regulation, by law, standing order made or resolution passed by any local authority, Government Company/Undertaking, other body or society specified under Sub-clauses (b) to (e) of Clause (v) of Section 2, or in any Judgment , decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority. Contentions. (A) By the petitioners. 13. We may now notice the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 14. Thefirst contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in this regard is that the provisions of the Act are arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 read with Articles 39, 41 and 42 of the Constitution. 15. It has been contended that by giving all pervasive meaning to ‘daily wage employees’ by including all ad hoc, urgent temporary employees and workcharge employees who have been appointed in accordance with the rule but have not been appointed on an sanctioned post on the regular basis as well as such regent temporary or casual appointment which are illegal and void ab-initio as one class and put them all beyond the place of consideration for regular appointment by way of regularisation in any circumstances and also beyond remedial measures has made the law placing unequals at same level resulting in irrational discrimination. So also consequential termination results in depriving the incumbents of their livelihood, makes law arbitrary and unreasonable violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. Such law is also indirection of State’s obligation to make laws in consonance with provisions of Constitution giving protection to rights of equality and life, and to give effect to directive principles of State Policy. The provisions of Part IV are not enforceable and no mandamus can be sought to enforce such provisions. Such law is also indirection of State’s obligation to make laws in consonance with provisions of Constitution giving protection to rights of equality and life, and to give effect to directive principles of State Policy. The provisions of Part IV are not enforceable and no mandamus can be sought to enforce such provisions. But a law made in derogation of and contrary to directive principles of Stale Policy, must be held to be arbitrary and unreasonable to result in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution, where such directive principles have been held to be reflected in rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. 16. It was urged that regularisation in all circumstances is not a constitutional anathema but there is well defined arena where under a continuous officiation by a person as an ad hoc temporary or casual employee results into coming into existence a wholly arbitrary and unreasonable condition which results in violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution. There is a constitutional mandate to protect the citizens from being subjected to such arbitrary and unreasonable treatments at the hands of the State pr instrumentalities of the State and to resort to positive action for redeeming such circumstances. Not only that there have been directions from the Supreme Court to frame appropriate schemes or regularisation of such employees but in fact the State Govt. did not certain laws laying down terms and conditions under which only regularisation on services of a person who has continued for a fairly long time and under which the persons already working for a long period have acquired rights to be considered and regularised by appointing on existing posts. The impugned provisions of the Act have resulted in taking away such rights not only the present right to make such claim by making a declaration that no regular appointment can be made but by further ordaining abatement of all such claims and by prohibiting recourse to all such remedial measures to law to ventilate such claims and prohibiting enforcement of any Judgment , decrees or awarded, wherein such claims have been accepted after trial. Such a piece of legislation is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as if results in denial of continued employment and results in deprivation of the livelihood of such employee arbitrarily and without authority of valid law. 17. In this connection, it was urged that a benefit that the accrued under the existing rules governing the sendee conditions cannot be taken away by amendment or making a law with retrospective effect. No statutory, rule or administrative order can whittle down any right which has become crystallized and no law or rule can be framed which affects or impair such vested right. 18. Secondly, it has been contended that the impugned provisions impinge upon the occupied field By the Central legislation viz., Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which has been enacted by the Parliament ton the subjects falling under item Nos. 23 and 24 of the concurrent List-III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution reserving the legislative powers in the matters of trade Union, Industrial and Labour Disputes under item 22, social security and social insurance, employment and unemployment under item No. 23 and welfare of labour including conditions of work, provident funds, employer’s liability, workmen’s compensation, invalidity and old age pensions and maternity benefits under item No. 24 of the concurrent list. As the impugned provision of the State Act are incompatible with and repugnant to the central legislation, the law made by the State legislature cannot operate unless such law was reserved for and received the president’s assent before its promulgation. The same having not been done, the provisions fall within the province of Article 254 of the Constitution and cannot operate so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions contained in central Act relating to industrial disputes and other collateral enactments for the welfare of the labour providing social security and social insurance governing the terms of employment and unemployment in industrial establishments. 19. 19. Ithas further been contended that in view of the clear declaration of law by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 548 , reaffirmed in General Manager Telecom vs. A. Srinivasa Rao & Ors., 1998 SCC (L&S) 6, various departments in the State engaged in the welfare activities and to the extent they are not engaged in discharge of sovereign functions of the State fall within the definition of ‘industry’, the employment as members of the various departments of the State invite applicability and operation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and like measures of labour welfare laws enacted by the Parliament. In view of that, taking away the right of workmen engaged in the public departments as members of the public services as defined in the Act of 1999 including denial of right to status in the service even after long and continuous engagement thereunder as casual, temporary or ad hoc and further denial to approach the remedial forum provided under the various enactments particularly under the Industrial Disputes act is directly in conflict with and repugnant with the provisions made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 20. It has been contended that not giving status of regular and permanent appointment while the work exists and the person being so appointed is discharging his functions continuously has been declared by Industrial Disputes Act, a Central Legislation, to be an act of unfair labour practice. Attention was invited to Entry 10 of the Fifth Schedule appended to Industrial Disputes Act made by Parliament. According to Section 2 (ra) of the Act, to employ the workmen as Badli, casual or temporary and to continue them such for years with the object of depriving them of status and privileges of the permanent workmen is an unfair labour practice. This provision is one of the manifestations of the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in connection with continued long officiation by persons on ad hoc, temporary or casual employment results in violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution and termination of such employees without considering their cases for regularisation an act of arbitrariness and unreasonableness demanding positive State action, 21. Section 25-T of the Industrial Disputes Act imposes a prohibition to adopt unfair labour practice and practising of unfair labour practice has been made an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or both under Section 25-U, This prohibition correspondingly confers a right on temporary employee firstly that he is not subjected to any unfair labour practice and secondly if a workman is subjected to such unfair labour practice to seek remedy by having recourse to industrial dispute settlement by raising such dispute and resolving through mechanism provided under the Act of 1947. Similarly, Chapters V-A and V-B of the Act of 1947 provide safeguards against illegal retrenchment by the employers. While Chapter V-A deals with smaller establishments, Chapter V-B lays down more stringent conditions against lay-off , retrenchment/lock-outs in the case of establishments which have not less than 100 workmen on an average per working day have been employed during the preceding 12 months and it is not of a seasonal character. All Govt. activities except engagement in discharge of its sovereign functions, have been held to be ‘industry’ within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the employees of such department or establishments, who fall within the definition of workmen, become subject of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the matter of their employment and unemployment and security of service and terms of conditions of employment the Act of 1947 confer rights, security of tenure and protection against exploitation arising from hire and fire policy both in the matter of substantive provisions as well as for seeking remedies against illegal terminations and relief against practising unfair labour practice. 9.22. An illegal retrenchment means a termination which is not in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act regulating retrenchment whether under Chapter V-A or Chapter V-B. The provisions relating to retrenchment and remedies against terminations, arising out of unfair labour practice or in contravention of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are governed by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which has been enacted in respect of subject matters enlisted in concurrent list III of VII Schedule of the Constitution and is occupied field. As the Act of 1999 has not been reserved for assent of the President but it makes provisions in respect of field occupied by Central Legislation, viz, industrial Disputes Act 1947, more particularly Sections 9, 11 and 19 of the Act of 1999, and which are repugnant to the provisions made in said enactment, the same cannot operate in view of clear provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution. 10.23. Ancillary to the aforesaid argument, it was contended that in defining ‘public services’ by including services other than ‘Stale public services’, the State legislature has transgressed its limit under Entry 41 of the List II of VII Schedule, Entry 41 of List II of VII Schedule reads “State Public Services and State Public Service Commission”. Services enumerated in Sub-clause (b) to (e) of Section 2(v) defining ‘public service’ are ultra vires, as they make law for services other than State Public Services. It amounts to invidious invasion on independence of autonomous bodies having independent juristic personality by inclusion of employment under local authorities, universities, any body established under any law enacted by State legislature and wholly owned Govt. companies. By making the filed of its operation to employment under private person like societies registered under law relating to registration of societies and non-Govt. education institutions whether registered or not which are receiving financial aid to any extent from State; an inroad has been made in the filed of private employment. This violates Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of such persons. 124. It was urged by Mr. Mridul that the Subject reserved for State legislature to make laws is the ‘State Public Services’ and not the ‘services under any organisation receiving aid from the State’. Learned Counsel contends that ‘State Public Service’ has definite connotation under service jurisprudence and howsoever wide the Entry 41 may be construed, it cannot include within its purview the services which are not under the State but are un