JUDGMENT 1. - In the writ petition, the petitioner has played for regularisation of his service on the post of Sweeper w.e.f. 02.04.1980 with all consequential benefits or from the date on which the services of his junior employee namely Raj Kumar and Gulab Chand were regularized. 2. As per fact of the case, the petitioner was initially appointed as Sweeper on daily wages w.e.f. 02.04.1980 and was allowed to work till 26.05.1982. The respondent has 4 orally terminated the services of the petitioner without following of the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. 3. Against the said illegal termination, the petitioner raised industrial dispute in which finally the Judge, Labour Court Bikaner passed an award vide order dated 09.06.2005 whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f. 26.05.1982. 4. The award passed by the Judge, Labour Court attain finality because it was not challenged and compliance order was issued on 01.06.2006 whereby petitioner was reinstated in service with continuation in service. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till today petitioner is getting salary at the rate of Rs. 73/- per day only and in spite of the fact that petitioner is performing duties as Sweeper the respondents are not regularising services of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further invited attention of this Court towards the fact that so many junior persons working on daily rate wages have already been regularized, therefore respondents may kindly be directed to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Sweeper. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2006 (4) SCC page 1 in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , in which following directions were issued in para 53 of the judgment. "One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases of irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Nayayanappa, 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. 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 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 a 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 by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 7. I have also perused the Rajasthan Class-IV Employee Rules, 1999 in which vide notification dated 27.02.2009 after amendment a provision was incorporated to regularise the service of temporary and daily rate employees working from last more than 10 to 15 years. 8. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner in light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Uma Devi (supra) so also as per amendment made in the Rules vide notification dated 27.02.2009 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and pass order in accordance with law. 9. It is made clear that if after consideration, it is found that petitioner is entitled for regularisation then benefit of regularisation and pay scale salary was granted to his junior with all consequential benefits.Writ Petition Allowed. *******