JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner's contention is that he is a handicapped person and was appointed as Cook on part time basis on fixed salary of Rs.300/- per month at Government SC Hostel, Fatehgarh, Jaisalmer run by Social Welfare Department initially in the year 1997 and, thereafter, on regular basis from 11th July, 1995. 3. According to the petitioner in the Social Welfare Department appointments were given to various persons on fixed salary of Rs.600/- and writ petition was preferred before this Court praying for regularisation which was allowed and finally their matter reached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the basis of the statement made by the respondent-State Government, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.2273/1994 alongwith other connected matters in regard to regularisation vide judgment dated 29th March, 1996 on the basis of draft plan/scheme prepared by the respondent- State department to regularise 775 part time employees working on the post of Chowkidar/Cook in phased manner. The petitioner who was appointee of the year 1995 submitted his representation for regularization. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now on 27.2.2009, the State Government has already issued order under Article 209 of the Constitution of India and amended the Class IV Employees Service Rules, 1999 whereby an employee in service since last 10 years upto 10th April, 2006 is required to be regularised though after screening by the Screening Committing. It is also submitted that this order has already been published in the Government publication. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , this Court in the case of Heera lal & Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Anr reported in 2009(1) CDR 626 (Raj.) issued directions for regularisation of the employees who already worked for 20 years. 5. After going through the contention raised in the reply, this Court is of the view that State Government be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the scheme framed by the State Government itself dated 27.2.2009 and while doing so, may also keep in consideration of the judgment delivered in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and judgment passed by this Court referred above. The decision be taken by the respondents within a period of three months from today. 6. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed accordingly.Writ Petition Allowed. *******