Judgment : Sanjay Karol, J. (oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following relief :- “a) That the respondent may kindly be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner as Class IV employee from the date when her junior i.e. respondents No.4 to 9 have been considered & regularized, and the petitioner may also be shown as senior or may be regularized at lease from the date when he completed his 10 years of service with all benefits like arrears of salary etc. b) That the respondents no.1 to 3 may also be ordered to pay all consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. after producing the entire service record of the petitioner and respondents no.4 to 9, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Noticeably, petitioner was appointed as a Peon (Class IV) employee on daily wage basis in the year 25.3.1988 (Annexure P-2). Her case for regularization of services was not considered for the reason that she did not fulfill the minimum requisite educational qualification i.e. 7th pass. 3. It be only observed that educational qualification is not a criteria which has weighed with the authorities while regularizing the services of daily waged workers. This fact is evident from the response so filed by the State. Even employees “who are illiterate stand regularized”. Further, in a case of similarly situated employees, this Court in CWP No.9970 of 2012, titled as Laxmi devi vs. State of H.P. and others, passed the following order:- “Despite completion of 13 years’ daily waged service, the petitioner complains that he has not been regularized in service. According to the policy of the State Government, the person who has completed 8 years’ continuous service is to be regularized, subject to availability of vacancies. 2. There shall be a direction to the 2nd and rd respondent to take an appropriate action in case of the petitioner, positively within a month after the production of certified copy of this judgment alongwith copy of this writ petition by the petitioner to be produced before the 3rd respondent. It is made clear that the objections regarding the qualification for regularization shall be ignored in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad versus Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 (1) SCC 361 . The writ petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending application(s), if any.” 4. It is made clear that the objections regarding the qualification for regularization shall be ignored in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad versus Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 (1) SCC 361 . The writ petition stands disposed of, so also, the pending application(s), if any.” 4. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 10454/2013 against the said judgment stands dismissed. As such, I see no reason as to why petitioner’s services, on the basis of parity, be not regularized, as was so done by the respondents in the cases of illiterate employees mentioned in Annexure P-7. 5. The petition is, therefore, allowed with the following directions:- (i) Respondents shall positively pass appropriate orders regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date when private respondents No.4 to 9 stood regularized. (ii) Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits from the date of regularization. Needful shall be done positively within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (iii) Since respondent authorities failed to regularize services of the petitioner for no fault of hers, she shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum. Pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of.