JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned order dated 31.3.2003 (Annex.P/6) and further prayed that respondents may be directed to regularise the services of petitioner on the post of Draftsman with all consequential benefits like seniority and arrears of salary. 2. The facts inter alia stated in the writ petition are that petitioner was possessing qualification of higher secondary and two years diploma in the trade of Draftsman Civil and as per his qualification he was appointed as Draftsman on daily wage basis on 25.2.1984 in the office of respondent no.2 and he is continuing as such till today. As per petitioner, he was given appointment on the post of Draftsman on ad hoc basis on 24.10.88 and on 2.1.1989 respondent no. 2 issued an order extending his ad hoc appointment. In para no. 4 of the writ petition, it is stated by petitioner that just after 12 days of passing of the order dated 2.1.1989, petitioner's appointment in regular pay scale was withdrawn and again he was deployed in the earlier status as daily wage worker. According to petitioner, order dated 2.1.1989 was made to appoint one Shri Sagar, who was provided appointment on compassionate ground. Meaning thereby, petitioner was appointed on the post of Draftsman and later on for sometime he was allowed to work in the regular pay scale but again he was reverted as daily wage worker. The case of petitioner is that he challenged the order dated 2.1.1989 before this Court by way of filing writ petition and said writ petition was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 311/1989 and said writ petition was finally decided in view of the fact that employer has already framed a scheme for regularization, which was placed before. this Court in the said writ petition. According to the Scheme of regularization, the employees were to be regularised in phased manner as per seniority. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was rendered infructuous due to formation of scheme by the respondents for regularization. After decision of the earlier writ petition even though Scheme for regularisation was framed but respondents did not regularise the service of petitioner although he has rendered more than 15 years on the post of Draftsman. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was rendered infructuous due to formation of scheme by the respondents for regularization. After decision of the earlier writ petition even though Scheme for regularisation was framed but respondents did not regularise the service of petitioner although he has rendered more than 15 years on the post of Draftsman. As per petitioner, a review petition was also filed before the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition but same was dismissed and against dismissal a special appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Division Bench but same was disposed of with direction to petitioner to approach the respondent employer by way of filing representation. 3. Pursuant to directions issued by the Division Bench, the petitioner filed representation before the respondents on 14.9.1998 through proper channel but same was not decided despite several requests, therefore, because of inaction on the part of respondents in not deciding the representation, petitioner again moved writ petition before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654/2003. The said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.2.2003 against which special appeal was filed and said special appeal was registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 246/2003 in which Division Bench of this Court disposed of the appeal vide order dated 22.4.2003 with direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 14.9.1998 submitted by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 4. As per petitioner, now respondents have turned down the representation filed by him vide order dated 31.5.2003, which is under challenge. in this writ petition. The contention of petitioner is that when a policy for regularisation was framed vide order dated 1.8.88, and modified on 30.6.1995, the case of petitioner was to be considered but without assigning any reason respondents have discontinued the scheme and denied the benefit of regularisation although petitioner is working since 1984 as Draftsman and entitled for regularisation in pursuance of said scheme. Therefore, petitioner has now challenged the order dated 31.5.2003 with prayer that respondents may be directed to grant regularisation on the post of Draftsman. Therefore, petitioner has now challenged the order dated 31.5.2003 with prayer that respondents may be directed to grant regularisation on the post of Draftsman. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is working continuously for last more than two decades and performing work of Draftsman but he is getting minimum wages prescribed for the skilled worker, therefore, respondents are under obligation to grant regular pay scale so also respondents are under obligation to decide the question of regularisation of services of petitioner without any further delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court towards judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering various decisions rendered by Apex Court has passed the order for framing particular scheme where workman has worked for more than 10 years without intervention. 5. As ' per learned counsel for the petitioner action of respondents is violative of Article 14, 21 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India because respondents have regularised the services of so many persons in pursuance of the scheme so formulated by them while ignoring the claim of petitioner, therefore, while making prayer for quashing the order Annex.P/6 dated 31.3.2003 it is prayed that respondents may be directed to regularise the service of petitioner and grant regular pay scale of Draftsman upon which he is working. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that petitioner was engaged as daily paid worker in the Civil Section of respondent no.2 and he is continuing as such till today. Respondents have not disputed the educational qualification of petitioner but submit that petitioner was appointed on the post of Draftsman purely on ad hoc basis on 30.9.1988 and he joined the duties w.e.f. 1.10.1988 and the order dated 24.10.1988 is merely a communication of assuming the duty. Respondents have not disputed the educational qualification of petitioner but submit that petitioner was appointed on the post of Draftsman purely on ad hoc basis on 30.9.1988 and he joined the duties w.e.f. 1.10.1988 and the order dated 24.10.1988 is merely a communication of assuming the duty. The petitioner was appointed for three months only on ad hoc basis on the post of Draftsman and again he was put on daily wages w.e.f. 20.1.1989 because one Shri Sagar was appointed on compassionate ground as he was possessing requisite qualification as per recruitment rules for the past of Draftsman and father of Shri Sagar was killed by terrorists in Punjab when he was in service, therefore, petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right regularisation on the post of Draftsman upon which he worked on ad hoc basis for 108 days only. It is further prayed that in the respondent department there are regulations for appointment of an employee and minimum qualification for the post of ; Draftsman is Diploma in Civil Engineering/Draftsmanship preferably with two years experience of field survey/draftsmanship. Further there is classification of posts under Regulation and category (iii) covers the post of Draftsman, therefore, petitioner cannot claim regularisation on the post of Draftsman as the appointment criteria does not permit for such regularization, so also the: scheme formulated earlier has been kept in abeyance, although before that 291 daily paid workers were regularised in phased manner till October, 1999 but due to acute financial crises the Board of Directors took a decision to keep the said scheme in abeyance and to reduce the man power and also implemented VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) and VSS (Voluntary : Separation Scheme), therefore, now petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right regularisation in view of the fact that the scheme itself was kept in abeyance. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that petitioner is not entitled for regularisation even though he is working for more than 24: years due to financial condition of the department. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. It is obvious from the facts that petitioner is admittedly working since 1984 and for 108 days he was allowed to work on ad hoc basis on the post of Draftsman. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. It is obvious from the facts that petitioner is admittedly working since 1984 and for 108 days he was allowed to work on ad hoc basis on the post of Draftsman. The respondents have not categorically denied the contention of petitioner that he, is not performing the duties of Draftsman and admitted that the scheme was formulated for regularisation of employees by which till 1999 services of as many as 291 employees were regularized, meaning thereby, respondents are utilising the services of petitioner since 1984 on daily wages and for some time he was granted pay scale of the post of Draftsman on ad hoc basis. Further, the respondents are admitting that Regulations are in force in which number of posts are categorised and post of Draftsman falls under the category no. (iii), meaning thereby, there are Regulations but a scheme was also formulated by the respondent department but fruits of the scheme were not made available to petitioner although in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner directions were issued by this Court to decide the representation filed by petitioner, therefore, in my opinion not considering the case of petitioner under the scheme and Regulation is contrary to the basic principle of law and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, I am of the opinion that judgment rendered in case of Uma Devi (supra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner covers the entitlement of petitioner for regularization. Para 53 and 55 of Uma Devi's case are as follows : "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases of irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 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 the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation 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. The question of regularisation 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 regularise 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 the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitment 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 sub-judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. 55. In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that are being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in Government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that Courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularisation or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A. No. 3595-3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them." 9. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that petitioner has been denied benefit of regularization/absorption without any proper reasons. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them." 9. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that petitioner has been denied benefit of regularization/absorption without any proper reasons. Under the Scheme benefit of regularisation was given to 291 persons and this Court was assured that regularisation will be made in phased manner as per the scheme but later on the said scheme was kept in abeyance on the ground that respondent department is suffering financial loss but at the same time respondents are admitting that petitioner is working as daily rated employee since 1984, therefore, it is a fit case in which directions are required to be issued for regularisation while following the directions given by Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is allowed and while following the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) I am of the opinion that the petitioner is admittedly working since 25.2.1984 as daily paid worker he is entitled for absorption/regularization on the post in category III of Staff Regulations of respondent Department as per his qualification because he has completed 24 years of service till today and still getting wage on daily rated basis which is against the principles of natural justice. Further it is directed that at the time of considering the case of petitioner for absorption/regularization, if on the basis of record it is found that petitioner is performing the duties of the post of Draftsman then he shall be considered for regularisation for the post of Draftsman, otherwise on other post as per his qualification in the Category III of Regulations. Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for regularisation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and grant all consequential benefits w.e.f. the date of filing writ petition which is 4.12.2004. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******