JUDGMENT : The only controversy involved in the present petition is that though the benefit is extended in terms of payment of pay in the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post on which persons like petitioner is working, in case of one Sunil Kumar Shrivastava but the identical claim made by the petitioner for which similar direction was granted by this Court has not yet been considered. A representation is made by the petitioner but the same has not yet been decided and, therefore, he is required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. It is seen from the record that one Sunil Kumar Shrivastava has filed W.P. No. 2797/2004, which came to be decided by this Court on 01.09.2006. Similarly the petitioner has also filed W.P. No. 3280/2004, which too was disposed of on 11.8.2006 in the identical manner. The similar directions were given by this Court in both the cases. The claim of Sunil Kumar Shrivastava was rejected for grant of regularization but by the order dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure P-4), the said person has been extended the benefit of minimum of the pay scale on the post on which he is working as a Daily wager. Precisely this has been done in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court and making of scheme by the State Government, in terms of such directions in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , and in the case of Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union Vs. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., and another, (2006) 6 SCC 310 . The petitioner has also made a representation to this effect on 21.01.2013 but the same has not yet been decided. 2. If a scheme is made and is made applicable or adopted by the respondents, the same is to be extended to all similarly situated persons and there cannot be any discrimination. 3. Looking to the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a final decision on the representation made by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and to communicate the decision to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. In case it is found that the petitioner is also similarly placed to the case of Sunil Kumar Shrivastava, same benefit be extended to him. 4. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. 5. Certified copy as per rules.