Judgment 1. These matters are filed by the present petitioners appointed on daily wage basis or on temporary basis in the respondent -Municpal Council, Bhilwara as Fireman, Drivers and Wireman. 2. The facts are illustratively taken from SBCWP No.11166/2011 – Bhawani Singh Solanki V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. 3. The initial date of appointment of the petitioner as Fireman with the respondent – Municipal Council, Bhilwara was 2.11.1994. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 8.6.1999 and then he approached the Labour Court, where the award of the Labour Court was in his favour and a copy of the award of the Labour Court dtd.9.9.2004 is placed on record as Annex.1 by which the learned Labour Court directed his reinstatement in service with 20% back wages. That award became final when challenge to the same laid by the respondent – Municipal Council, Bhilwara failed before this Court and SBCWP No.989/2005 – Municipal Council, Bhilwara V/s Bhawani Singh Solanki and anr. was rejected by the learned Single Judge on 17.4.2008 and even the Division Bench appeal filed by the Municipal Council being DBSAW No.07771/2009 – Municipal Council, Bhilwara V/s Bhawani Singh Solanki was dismissed vide order dtd.7.4.2010 and thus in compliance of the said award of the Industrial Tribunal, which was upheld by this Court, the respondent – Municipal Council reappointed the petitioners on daily wage basis vide order Annex.4 dtd.24.12.2009. The petitioners are still working and they have actually worked for a period of more than 10 years, even if their break in service on account of illegal retrenchment from the year 1999 till 2009 reinstatement is ignored for argument sake. 4. When the respondent – Local Self Department of Government of Rajasthan issued a fresh advertisement for recruitment on the post of Fireman on 8.9.2011 (Annex.6), the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition claiming that their services first deserve to be regularized instead of recruitment of fresh persons on these posts of Fireman. Upon admission of the writ petition, the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition. Upon admission of the writ petition, the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 especially para 53 thereof and urged that after the award of the Industrial Tribunal in their favour, since the petitioners have admittedly worked for more than 10 years on daily wage basis and even though the Industrial Tribunal had held in their favour that period of break in service on account of illegal retrenchment in the year 1999 was illegal and period of said discontinuation or break in service will be treated as continuous service notionally, the petitioner has worked in that capacity for more than 17 years by now and even if the notional period of continuous service is ignored, on the own showing of the respondent – Municipal Council, Bhilwara vide Annex.4 dtd.24.12.2009, when they were reinstated back in service in pursuance of the award of the Industrial Tribunal by now, the earlier period and period after 2009 till 2014, the petitioners have admittedly worked for more than 10 years and therefore, before making direct recruitment in pursuance of the advertisement, the services of the petitioners, who have been working for long period on daily wage basis, atleast now deserves to be regularized and they are entitled to the benefit of regular pay scale and other benefits which are available to other regular employees. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, Dr. Pratishtha Dave and Mr. Kailash Joshi have urged that the Screening Committee of the Local Self Government Department had considered the cases of the present petitioners for regularisation in its meeting held on 26.7.2012 and respective decisions were taken in the cases of all these petitioners. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, Dr. Pratishtha Dave and Mr. Kailash Joshi have urged that the Screening Committee of the Local Self Government Department had considered the cases of the present petitioners for regularisation in its meeting held on 26.7.2012 and respective decisions were taken in the cases of all these petitioners. The consideration of the case of the present petitioner – Bhawani Singh Solanki is quoted below for ready reference: ^^7- Jh Hkokuh flag lksyadh iq= Jh jkes’oj flag }kjk fnukad 02-11-94 ls 08-06-99 rd laosnd }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s Jfed ds :i esa Qk;jeSu dk dk;Z fd;k gSA budh ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk lhfu;j lSd.Mjh mRrh.kZ rFkk vfXu’keu izkFkfed izf’k{k.k /kkfjr gSA jktLFkku uxjikfydk ¼vf/kuLFk vkSj fyfid oxhZ; lsok½ fu;e 1963 ds vuqlkj Qk;jeSu in ij lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq fefMy mrh.kZ ;k cksMZ led{k vgZrk j[kus okys vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks iwfoZdrk nh tk,xh rFkk fu;qfDr ds i’pkr~ vfXu’keu dk izkFkfed izf’k{k.k izkIr djuk gksxkA ek/;fed f’k{kk cksMZ jktŒ lSd.Mjh Ldwy ijh{kk 1992 ds vadrkfydk ukekadu 518337 ds vuqlkj tUe fnukad 12-06-1976 gSA Jfed }kjk izLrqr ‘kiFk&i= vuqlkj fnukad 01-06-2002 rd dksbZ larku ugha gS rFkk blds i'pkr~ nks larku iSnk gqbZ gSA laosnd }kjk gVk fn, tkus ij mDr Jfed us ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; HkhyokMk esa ckn la-98@2000 nk;j fd;k Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV fnukad 09-09-2004 }kjk dk;Z ij ysus ds vkns’k fn, x;sA Je U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s iapkV ds fo:) ifj’kn~ }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj esa fjV dh xbZ ijarq mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Je U;k;ky; ds vkns’k dks ;Fkkor j[krs gq, bUgsa iqu% dk;Z ij ysus ds vkns’k fn,A ftldh ikyuk esa ifj’kn~ ds vkns’k dzekad 13379&91 fnukad 24-12-2009 ls iqu% nSfud osru ij j[kk x;k rFkk fujarj dk;Zjr gSA mDr izdj.k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky;ksa ds ifjis{; esa lsok dh fujarjrk ds laca/k esa fof/kd jk; izkIr dh xbZA fof/k vf/kdkjh uxjfuxe] vtesj dh fVIi.kh vuqlkj Je U;k;ky; }kjk fn, x, iapkV ds fo:) ifj”kn~ }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj esa fjV dh xbZ ijarq mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Je U;k;ky; ds vkns’k dks ;Fkkor j[krs gq, bUgsa iqu% dk;Z ij ysus ds vkns’k fn,A Je U;k;ky; dk vkns’k vafre vkns’k gksus ds dkj.k bl vkns’k ds vuqlkj Jfed dh lsok,a fujarj ekuh tkosxhA ekuuh; U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; ds ifjis{; esa vfu;fer :i ls izFke fu;qfDr fnukad 02-11-1994 ls fnukad 10-04-2006 rd dqy lsokof/k 11 o”kZ 5 ekg 8 fnu rFkk 31-5-2012 rd lsokof/k 17 o”kZ 6 ekg 29 fnu gksrh gSA vfu;fer :i ls izFke fu;qfDr ds le; Qk;jeSu dk in Lohd`r Fkk ,ao orZeku esa Hkh mDr in Lohd`r ,ao fjDr gSA fudk; }kjk bUgsa Qk;jeSu ds fjDr in ij fu;fefrdj.k vfHk’ka”kk dh gSA Jh lksyadh }kjk U;k;ky; esa izdj.k fopkjk/khu jgus dh vof/k ds nkSjku ifj”kn~ esa dk;Z ugha fd;k gSA fudk; }kjk voxr djk;k gSA fd Qk;jeSu ds inksa dks ljdkj }kjk lh/kh HkrhZ ls Hkjs tkus dh dk;Zokgh ds fo:) mDr Jfed dh orZeku esa flfoy fjV ihVh’ku ua- 11166@11 ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA buds }kjk Loa; ds O;; ij fnukad 03-09-1996 ls 04-10-1996 rd vfXu’keu izf’k{k.k izkIr fd;k gSA budk izdj.k U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gksus ds dkj.k desVh }kjk dksbZ fu.kZ; ugha fy;k x;kA vr% Jfed }kjk fu;fer fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa fd;k x;k viuk okn ;fn okfil ys fy;k tkrk gS rks izdj.k iqu% Ldzhfuax desVh ds le{k izLrqr fd;k tkosA** 6. Thus, even though the case of the present petitioner was found fit for regularisation, the Screening Committee did not finalize it in view of the pendency of present present writ petition. Similarly in the case of Gopal Lal, the Committee found him fit for regularisation, but did not pass any final order in view of pendency of the writ petition filed by him, namely SBCWP No.11168/2011. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka V/s M.L. Kesari reported in AIR 2010 SC 2587 and the Hon'ble Supreme explaining para 53 of the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra), further explained the exception carved out in the case of State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 in the following manner : “This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below: 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa 1967 (1) SCR 128 ; R.N. Nanjundappa: 1972 (1) SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan : 1979 (4) SCC 507 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 regularization 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 regularize 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 the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments 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 six months from this date.... 5. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date.... 5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ‘regularization’ enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a onetime measure. Umadevi, directed that such onetime measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). 6. The term ‘one-time measure’ has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.” 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record and the judgments cited at the Bar. This Court dealt with almost a similar controversy of regularisation in the case of Deen Mohd. V/s Industrial Tribunal and ors. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record and the judgments cited at the Bar. This Court dealt with almost a similar controversy of regularisation in the case of Deen Mohd. V/s Industrial Tribunal and ors. – SBCWP No.4979/2009 recently decided on 13.2.2014, where the workman Deen Mohd., who died during the pendency of the writ petition was working as a Daily rated employee in Paschimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh, Jodhpur and had completed of more than 20 years of service on daily wages basis. Similarly relying upon the exception in para 53 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), this Court held as under: “6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Bhandari urged that the effect of the Division Bench order in favour of the present petitioner setting aside the termination order even though oral and directing reinstatement of the petitioner with other consequential benefits except the arrears of back wages, was to treat the period of service as continuous right from the date of initial appointment i.e. 30.10.1982 and after completion of 10 years of said service, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) clearly entitled the petitioner to the regularisation in service and regular pay scale. In the alternative, he urged that atleast 7 years period from 30.10.1982 (the date of initial appointment) to 10.12.1989 (the date of termination by oral order) and then 14.5.2001 (the actual reinstatement in pursuance of Division Bench order) to 4.7.2013 (the date of death) computes to nearly 20 years of services and therefore, the benefit of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) para 53 deserves to be given to him and the learned Industrial Tribunal has not properly appreciated the quoted para 53 in para 14 of its order and wholly misconstrued the words “intervention of orders of the Court or of Tribunals”, the said benefit of regularisation has been denied to the present petitioner. He submitted that such intervention was meant only to indicate the situation of continuation in service on account of interim order of the Court, which intervened in the delinking of the relationship of employer and employee on account of impugned termination and not the final effect of judgment of the Court which in the present case was by the Division Bench of this Court giving him all consequential benefits holding termination by oral order as illegal cannot be said to be reinstatement on account of 'intervention of the court' and therefore, the entire period of said delinking or snapping of the relationship between the period 10.12.1989 to 14.5.2001 has to be treated as notional continuation of his services in pursuance of the Division Bench order and this cannot be said to be on account of intervention of Court's order. Irrespective of that also, the petitioner rendered the actual service initially for the period 30.12.1982 till 10.12.1989 and thereafter from 14.5.2001 till the date of his death on 4.7.2013 and therefore, viewed from any angle, he had actually served for about 20 years even if the notional period of his service is ignored for the time being, more than 10 years in the respondent-Society and consequently, he was definitely entitled to the regularisation and regular pay scale after completion of 10 years of service in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union V/s Mineral Exploration Corpn. Ltd. reported in 2006 (6) SCC 310 explaining the para 53 of the Uma Devi's case.” 9. In the present set of cases, the Labour Court had undoubtedly held in favour of the present petitioners that their retrenchment or termination from their services when they were working as daily rated employee in the respondent – Municipal Council, Bhilwara was illegal and directed them to be reinstated back in service, which directions were upheld by this Court upto the Division Bench. In consequence thereof only, the respondent – Municipal Council reinstated them back in service vide order Annex.4 dtd.24.12.2009. In consequence thereof only, the respondent – Municipal Council reinstated them back in service vide order Annex.4 dtd.24.12.2009. The earlier period of their service upto 1999 and after reinstatement in pursuance of the award in their favour was upheld by this Court in the year 2009 by now in the year 2014, admittedly and undisputedly, all these petitioners have completed more than 10 years of their actual and de facto services on daily wages basis and the respondent – Municipal Council, even though the Labour Court in some of these cases had evn directed that the break in service will be treated as continuous on notional basis and if that period is also added to their actual working, the number of years would go as high as 17 to 20 years and otherwise, if actual working is taking into account, the fact remains that they worked for more than 10 years as daily wagers in the respondent – Municipal Council in various positions of Fireman, Drivers and Wireman and therefore, they definitely fell within the exception provided in para 53 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Their reinstatement back in service under order Annex.4 dtd.24.12.2009 cannot be said to be on account of 'intervention' of the Court but to give effect to the final order of the Court which is also explained by this Court in the case of Deen Mohd. V/s Industrial Tribunal (supra), which judgment is further supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka V/s M.L. Kesari (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents also. 10. It is undisputed before this Court that the petitioners have worked for more than 10 years against the sanctioned posts as would be clear from the quoted portion of the Screening Committee's decision in the case of Bhawani Singh Solanki (supra) and therefore, their initial appointment could not be said to be illegal in any manner, but at the most, it could be said to be irregular and that is the contingency which is said to be requisite for implementing the exception of para 53 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi ( supra). Thus, this Court finds that the petitioners satisfy all the requisites for claiming regularisation of their services at this stage and without regularising them in service, the respondents naturally could not make direct recruitment on these positions ignoring the prior claim of the present petitioners. Other than the posts on which the petitioners have to be regularized, if the respondents still need to employ more persons and have more vacant sanctioned posts, they are always free to recruit fresh people by direct recruitment process under that advertisement. In these circumstances, the petitioners are found entitled to the relief of regularisation at this stage. 11. Consequently, these writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to regularise the services of all the present petitioners within a period of three months from today. Upon such regularisation, the petitioners will be entitled to the grant of pay scales and other benefits, which are available to the regularly appointed persons with effect from the date of their regularisation. 12. Even though the respondents will be free to regularize the services of the petitioners now, there is considerable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the past period of their services right from the date of their initial appointment and notional period of their break in service during their illegal retrenchment/termination should be taken as continuous period for computing the period of qualifying services for the pension purposes, otherwise, after their retirement, the petitioners will not stand to gain anything on account of their fruitful litigation before the Labour Court and this Court earlier and now. There is no strong objection to this submission from the side of respondents. 13. The respondents are thus further directed to add and take into account the period of the service from the initial date of their appointment till the date of their regularisation in service now, as the period rendered in the respondent – Municipal Council for the purpose of computing the qualifying services for pension and other retiral benefits purposes. 14. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.