JUDGMENT 1. - These intra court appeals are directed against order dated 19.7.2000 of learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-Gopal Dan (referred to as "appellant" hereinafter) seeking directions to the respondent-Rajasthan Agriculture University (referred to as "the respondent-University" hereinafter) to regularise his services on the post of Class IV employee with effect from the date the persons junior to him have been given regular appointment on the said post with consequential benefits, has been allowed in terms that the respondent-University shall give regular appointment to the appellant on the post of Class IV employee with effect from the date on which his juniors were given regular appointment and he shall also be given pay scale as if he is regularly appointed w.e.f. 1.9.2000. However, it is ordered that for all other benefits, his services will be treated as appointed on 1.9.89. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order impugned denying of the regular pay scale and the consequential benefits w.e.f. 1.9.89 whereas, the respondent-University is aggrieved by the directions issued for regularisation of services of the appellant on the post of Class IV. 3. The appellant was initially employed by the respondent-University as daily rated employee in the year 1982. However, his services were brought to an end w.e.f. 18.7.90. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bikaner vide notification dated 12.1.93. The reference was answered by the Labour Court in favour of the appellant vide award dated 28.2.96, whereby, the termination of services of the appellant was held to be illegal and he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service. The appellant was also held entitled for arrears of salary a sum of Rs. 1500/- in lump sum and full wages for the period from the date of award till the date of reinstatement. The award passed as aforesaid by the Labour Court attained finality. 4. In compliance of the award, the appellant was reinstated in service vide order dated 10.4.96 issued by the respondent-University. After reinstatement, the appellant was paid his due wages @ Rs. 32 per day. 5. The respondent-University published the seniority list of Class IV employees, however, the appellant's name was not shown in the list. 4. In compliance of the award, the appellant was reinstated in service vide order dated 10.4.96 issued by the respondent-University. After reinstatement, the appellant was paid his due wages @ Rs. 32 per day. 5. The respondent-University published the seniority list of Class IV employees, however, the appellant's name was not shown in the list. In these circumstances, the appellant made representation to assign him seniority in compliance of award dated 28.2.96 passed by the Labour Court as aforesaid and also requested to provide him regular pay scale admissible to the Class IV employees with effect from the date the persons junior to him were accorded regular pay scale. The appellant was neither assigned the proper seniority in the seniority list nor the regular pay scale rather, vide order dated 9/10.2.98 issued by the Director, Research of the respondent-University, the appellant was directed to be paid fixed wages Rs. 1100/- per month on completion of five years of service w.e.f. 1.9.94. immediately thereafter, yet another order dated 10.2.98 was issued whereby the payment of wages at the fixed rate of Rs. 1100/- per month were directed to be paid to the appellant w.e.f. 28.2.96 instead of 1.9.94. Later, vide order dated 13.5.96, the directions were issued that the employees who are being paid fixed wages Rs. 1100/- per month be given Rs. 1500/- per month w.e.f. 1.5.96. 6. The respondent-University issued the final seniority list of Class IV employees for the purpose of giving promotion to the post of LDC vide communication dated 11/18.3.98, wherein the appellant's name did not appear. Despite repeated representations being made, the appellant was not accorded the regular pay scale and his services were not regularised and therefore, he preferred the writ petition before this court claiming the relief as aforesaid. 7. The writ petition was contested by the respondent-University taking the stand that the appellant was a casual labour and he has already been extended the benefits admissible to him under the award passed by the Labour Court. It was contended that the appellant's services can only be regularised on availability of the post keeping in view his seniority. Regarding the details given by the appellant of the persons junior to him, who were accorded regular pay scale and their services were regularised, it was stated that the details given are vague and cannot be replied without full facts. Regarding the details given by the appellant of the persons junior to him, who were accorded regular pay scale and their services were regularised, it was stated that the details given are vague and cannot be replied without full facts. It was denied that the appellant has been subjected to any discrimination. 8. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Single Judge arrived at the finding that the services of the persons junior to the appellant stand regularised and therefore, not to regularise the services of the appellant and not to give him regular appointment would be in clear violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition has been allowed in terms indicated above. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in picking up the date 1.9.2000 for giving regular pay scale to the appellant instead of from the date the persons junior to him were accorded regular appointment in pay scale admissible to the post of Class IV. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has specifically directed that the appellant shall be treated to be appointed on 1.9.89 for all other benefits then the grant of regular pay scale could not have been restricted to a later date. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order impugned deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed for. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University submitted that the appellant was only a casual labour/work charge employee working on daily rates basis and therefore, he was not entitled to be regularised in service de hors the Rules. Learned counsel submitted that there was no pleadings showing that the persons who are alleged to have been granted regular pay scale are similarly situate qua the appellant and therefore, the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in granting the relief to the appellant for regularisation of service and the payment of salary in the regular pay scale admissible to Class IV w.e.f. 1.9.89. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. Indisputably, the services of the appellant, a casual labour working on daily wages basis, were terminated w.e.f. 18.7.90, however, he was reinstated in service in compliance of award dated 28.2.96 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. Indisputably, the services of the appellant, a casual labour working on daily wages basis, were terminated w.e.f. 18.7.90, however, he was reinstated in service in compliance of award dated 28.2.96 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner. It is to be noticed that taking into consideration the fact that the appellant was in gainful employment during the period he remained out of job of the respondent-University, the Labour Court directed payment of arrear of wages quantified at Rs. 1500/- only. Admittedly, the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the appellant and denying the arrear of back wages as aforesaid, has attained finality. 13. It is not the case of the appellant that the persons alleged to be junior to him were also out of employment and were later reinstated in service yet, they have been accorded regular pay scale admissible to the post of Class IV w.e.f. 1.9.89. If the persons actually discharging the duties in the employment of the respondent-University for number of years, have been accorded regular pay scale admissible to Class IV employees from some earlier date then the appellant who was out of service and did not actually discharge the duties, cannot claim parity vis-a-vis those employees. 14. It is pertinent to note that keeping in view the appellant's continuity in service in terms of the award passed by the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge has specifically directed that the appellant's services shall be treated at par with the persons junior to him w.e.f. 1.9.89 for all other benefits except the payment of salary in the regular pay scale admissible to Class IV employees, which has also been allowed in his favour w.e.f. 1.9.2000. Obviously, the appellant's services being treated at par with the other employees, he shall be entitled for notional fixation of his salary in the regular pay scale w.e.f. 1.9.89 but shall not be entitled for actual payment for the period 1.9.89 to 30.8.2000. 15. It is to be noticed that the specific pleadings of the appellant regarding the services of persons junior to him namely, Shri Jitendra Singh, Shrikant Modak, Jairam, Tulsiram, Mohan, Ajay Kumar, Ridha Ram, whose names appear in the Seniority List at Serial Nos. 15. It is to be noticed that the specific pleadings of the appellant regarding the services of persons junior to him namely, Shri Jitendra Singh, Shrikant Modak, Jairam, Tulsiram, Mohan, Ajay Kumar, Ridha Ram, whose names appear in the Seniority List at Serial Nos. 30, 18, 17, 50, 35, 19 & 46 respectively having been regularised and the regular pay scale being accorded to them, have not been specifically denied by the respondents there in their return and therefore, the appellant's claim for regularisation on the parity of the benefit extended to other similarly situate employees, appears to be justified. It is true that ordinarily the High Court cannot issue the directions for regularisation of the services unless the recruitment itself was made by following the due procedure but then, the respondent having extended the benefits as aforesaid to the similarly situate employees, the appellant cannot be picked up for different treatment being given. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in considered opinion of this court, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for regularisation of the services of the appellant w.e.f. 1.9.89 treating him at par with the persons junior to him, whose services already stand regularised, cannot be faulted with. 16. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed on the post de hors the Rules and therefore, while extending the benefit on account of alleged discrimination being practised by the respondents, the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in moulding the relief and restricting the actual benefits of payment of salary in the regular pay scale admissible to Class IV employees to a later date i.e. 1.9.2000. In considered opinion of this court, while extending the benefit of payment of salary in regular pay scale taking into consideration the length of the service, the fact that the appellant did not actually discharge the duties during the period 18.7.90 to 28.2.96 and he was denied the wages for the said period by the Labour Court, cannot be ignored. Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the payment of salary to the appellant in the regular pay scale admissible to Class IV employees w.e.f. 1.9.2000 instead of 1.9.89 also does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to warrant interference by us in exercise of intra court appellate jurisdiction. 17. Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the payment of salary to the appellant in the regular pay scale admissible to Class IV employees w.e.f. 1.9.2000 instead of 1.9.89 also does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to warrant interference by us in exercise of intra court appellate jurisdiction. 17. For the aforementioned reasons, both the intra court appeals lack merits, the same are hereby dismissed with the observations as above.Appeals dismissed. *******