JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 01.02.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8912/2009, the State is in appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. Dinesh Yadav, the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants and Mr. Shiv Lal Verma, the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The respondent approached this Court pleading that he was a member of the Scheduled Tribe and had been in the year 1991 appointed in the post of Cook by the appellants on temporary basis. He had averred that he had been working on the said post at Police Line, Dausa under the respondent No. 3 from 02.02.1993 to 10.10.1996 at a consolidated pay of Rs. 800/- per month. On his representation to regularise his services, he alleged that he was terminated verbally on and from 10.10.1996. An appropriate writ, order or direction was sought for to annul his verbal termination and also to direct the appellants to reinstate him in service and further regularise him in the post of Cook. 4. The appellants, in their reply, while questioning the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay, did contend that that the respondent/writ-petitioner had never been selected or appointed even on temporary basis in the post of Cook, as claimed. They stated that he had been engaged as a part time Langari on muster roll for cooking food in Police Line, Dausa and as and when he rendered services, he was paid wages on the basis of actual number of days he worked. According to the appellants, in the above capacity the respondent/writ-petitioner worked as a muster roll worker for the periods, as mentioned herein below:- 01.09.1994 to 30.01.1995 143 days remained absent for 10 days 01.03.1995 to 27.06.1995 103 days remained absent for 19 days 12.09.1995 to 29.09.1996 328 days remained absent for 57 days 5. The appellants stated that in between from 01.07.1995 to 11.09.1995, he had remained absent and categorically denied his claim to have worked continuously in the post of Cook from 02.02.1993 to 10.10.1996. 6. The learned Single Judge condoned the delay inferring that from 1996 to 2006, the respondent/writ-petitioner must have been making his efforts to secure his reinstatement in service and he ought not to be non-suited on this count. 6. The learned Single Judge condoned the delay inferring that from 1996 to 2006, the respondent/writ-petitioner must have been making his efforts to secure his reinstatement in service and he ought not to be non-suited on this count. Referring to a decision of this Court in Gopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4478/1995, decided on 28.05.2009 , the learned Single Judge directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The appellants were directed to release his pay in the minimum of regular pay scale for the post of Cook and also to consider his case for regularisation in service. 7. Whereas Mr. Yadav has argued that in the attendant facts and circumstances, the enormous delay of 13 years does not merit condonation and that even otherwise, having regard to the nature of engagement of the respondent/writ-petitioner, the direction for his reinstatement and other consequential benefits, is uncalled for, Mr. Sharma has urged, to the contrary. According to him, the respondent/writ-petitioner had been appointed with the appellants on temporary basis and the verbal termination of his service being patently illegal, the determination made by the impugned judgment and order, is unassailable. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, we are inclined to sustain the challenge made in the instant appeal. In absence of any material whatsoever to explain the delay of thirteen years on the part of the respondent/writ-petitioner in approaching this Court, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the same ought not to have been condoned. It is the case of the respondent/writ-petitioner that his services were terminated in the year 1996 and he had invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in the year 2009 i.e. after a lapse of 13 years. No convincing reason or explanation is provided to explain the delay. Moreover, the documents appended to the writ petition do not demonstrate, in unimpeachable terms, that the respondent/writ-petitioner had been appointed as Cook following any process, contemplated in law, to claim retention in service or regularisation thereof. Though, an endeavour had been made on behalf of the respondent/writ-petitioner to draw an analogy from the scheme of Social Welfare Department of the State, on a perusal of the judgment and order dated 28.05.2009 rendered in Gopal Singh (supra), we are not inclined to sustain the same. 9. Though, an endeavour had been made on behalf of the respondent/writ-petitioner to draw an analogy from the scheme of Social Welfare Department of the State, on a perusal of the judgment and order dated 28.05.2009 rendered in Gopal Singh (supra), we are not inclined to sustain the same. 9. Having regard to the nature of his engagement as a muster roll worker and also the fact that the scheme referred to therein, belong to the Social Welfare Department, whereas the respondent/writ-petitioner claimed to be an appointee of the Department of Home, we are of the unhesitant opinion that he cannot, in law, draw any sustenance from the said decision. 10. On a cumulative consideration of all above, we hereby interfere with the impugned judgment and order. It is, thus, set aside. The appeal is allowed.Appeal allowed. *******