JUDGMENT 1. - On 21st January, 2009, the petitioner addressed a representation to the respondents with a prayer to regularise his services for he had been continued on contract basis since 1st July, 1995. The representation as well as the reminders evoked no response, and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s):- "(i) respondents may kindly be directed by issuing writ of mandamus or appropriate order or direction to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of caretaker in the regular pay scale with all consequential benefits from the date of his initial appointment. (ii) respondents may also kindly be directed to make the payment of monthly emolument in the regular pay scale on the post of caretaker since initial appointment of petitioner with all consequential benefit, by issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction. (iii) respondents may further be directed to release the outstanding salary of the petitioner as well as payment against medical allowance. In as much as the annual grade increment which is become due in July, 2011. (iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Briefly, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis with effect from 1st July, 1995, against the sanctioned post of "Caretaker". 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application has vehementaly argued that the post of "Caretaker" is a sanctioned post, as would be evident from Schedule-A annexed to the writ application indicating the sanctioned posts and work allotted as on 30th November, 2009 with necessary details including sanctioned strength. The post of 'Caretaker' has been indicated at serial number 9 with the pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200. The current remuneration of the post has been indicated as Rs. 9,272/- (nine thousand two hundred seventy two), on a consolidated basis per month, with 10% increment since 2001, which has been accorded to the petitioner up to 2011. 4. The post of 'Caretaker' has been indicated at serial number 9 with the pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200. The current remuneration of the post has been indicated as Rs. 9,272/- (nine thousand two hundred seventy two), on a consolidated basis per month, with 10% increment since 2001, which has been accorded to the petitioner up to 2011. 4. Learned counsel referring to the pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors.: 2006 (4) SCC 1 , further emphasised that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after a survey of several earlier opinions, clarified that the persons duly qualified but irregularly appointed and have been working continuously for ten years or more, in duly sanctioned posts, without intervention of orders of the Courts or of tribunals, needs to be regularized. Thus, the respondents ought to have regularised the services of the petitioner for he had completed more than ten years of service on contractual basis on 10th April, 2006. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that when the petitioner was initially engaged on contractual basis there were no recruitment rules in existence governing of the service conditions of the post of "Caretaker". The Bureau of Industrial Promotion, Rajasthan Service Rules, 1998 (for short, 'Rules of 1998'), came into force with effect from 1st January, 1998. Learned counsel further urged that though the Rules of 1998, did contemplate an educational qualification of graduation; however, the petitioner was continued. Be that as it may, the necessity of educational qualification of being a 'graduate' has also been subsequently dispensed with in the year 2012 vide an amendment as would be evident from order dated 9th May, 2012. Thus, taking note of the directions by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (3) (supra), a judgment in rem, petitioner's services ought to have been regularised. 6. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit reiterating the stand in not regularising the services of the petitioner for the period preceding to the year 1998, while the Rules of 1998 were not in existence, , could not be considered for the purpose of computation of ten years of service, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Sumit Teterwal, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents further urged that though the contract of the petitioner was renewed from time to time up to year 2011, but that fact by itself would not confer the employee with a vested right for regularization. Referring to para 50 of the pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Uma Devi (supra), he emphasised that even if the right to employment was to fall within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution. The argument that Article 23 of the Constitution is breached for the employment of the daily wager amounts to forced labour, cannot be accepted for such an argument has been repelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (3) (supra). Therefore, the claim of the petitioner, for regularization, cannot be sustained. 8. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, para 1.3 (c) of the Rules of 1998, further contemplates application of the rules to all the employees who were in the service of the Bureau, at that time the rules were brought into effect, but those rules shall not apply to employees on contract or on deputation as well as in matters regulated by the contract or terms of deputation. Therefore, the claim is not sustainable on that count as well. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 10. Indisputably, the petitioner was engaged on contract basis, as would be reflected from the terms of contract agreement, which were reduced to writing on 1st July, 1995. The fact that the petitioner has been continued since then is also not in dispute. Further, the contract was renewed from time to time even after the Rules of 1998, were brought into effect, and this fact has been admitted by the respondent-Bureau. The petitioner addressed a representation for regularisation of his service on 21st January, 2009, with a further prayer for release of the benefits of 6th Pay Commission. The representation was followed by reminders dated 14th December, 2009, 14th December, 2010, 14th February, and 23rd March, 2011. But having received no response; the petitioner instituted the present writ application, on 10th October, 2011. 11. The representation was followed by reminders dated 14th December, 2009, 14th December, 2010, 14th February, and 23rd March, 2011. But having received no response; the petitioner instituted the present writ application, on 10th October, 2011. 11. At motion stage, on 16th February, 2012, notices were issued on writ as well as stay application. The respondents entered appearance through counsel on 8th October, 2012, and sought time for response to the writ application. Prayer was granted. It appears that subsequently, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 31st March, 2014, which is subject matter of the connected writ application No. 3967/2014 (Vijay Kumar Jonwal v. Commissioner Instrument Promotion) . On 22nd April, 2014, this Court upon hearing both the sides stayed the operation of the order terminating the services of the petitioner dated 31st March, 2014. 12. In the case of Uma Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land while dealing with the divergent views earlier, expressed with reference to daily wage employment, set at rest the controversy, with a direction to the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities to 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 the cover of orders of the Courts or Tribunals. It appears that the respondents did not take any steps to regularise the services of the petitioner, who was initially engaged on contractual basis with effect from 1st July, 1995, and had been continued on same terms and conditions with increase in the wages. It is also not disputed that the requirement of educational qualification of being "Graduate", as contemplated under the Rules of 1998, was subsequently relaxed. 13. Rule 1.3 (c) of the Rules of 1998, though makes a provision for exclusion of employees on contract or on deputation but makes a provision that the rules shall have no effect to the application of any other law, statutory rules or regulations for the time being in force. The law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Uma Devi (supra), is a judgment in rem and the respondents were obliged to consider the case of the petitioner for regulation instead of the renewing his contract on year to year basis while turning a deaf-ear to the representations of the petitioner. 14. The law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Uma Devi (supra), is a judgment in rem and the respondents were obliged to consider the case of the petitioner for regulation instead of the renewing his contract on year to year basis while turning a deaf-ear to the representations of the petitioner. 14. Rule 1.5 of the Rules of 1998 provides power to alter or amend the rules, which reads thus:- "1.5. Power to alter or amend: The Bureau may, subject to the limits of its powers to make such rules or orders, relax the provisions of these rules in such manner as may appear to it to be just and equitable, without previous notice or intention to do so. It has the right to give effect to such a relaxation from any date which it may deem fit provided that if a rule or order, which affects any employee (s) adversely is to be given retrospective effect, suitable protection shall be given to such employee (s). The decision of the Governing Body in this regard shall be binding on the employees." 15. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also produced minutes of 36th Governing Body Meeting held on 5th March, 2005; wherein the Governing Body, in para No.17, under item number 12, resolved thus:- "A.G. Paras With Management Replies Examined by the Sub-Committee The Governing Body discussed AG audit paras. After detailed discussions, the GB directed that the replies be amended in view of the following observations. Para No. 15. Government's permission had been obtained for absorption of Mrs. R. Malarvizhi. Vacant post was available in the Bureau. Ex-post facto approval has now been accorded by the Governing Body for creation of a superannuary post of Asstt. General Manager in pay scale of Rs.10000-325-15200 for the period 2.3.2002 to 17.8.2002. Consent from parent department was also obtained subsequently. Para No. 17 The Governing Body observed that the incumbent has already worked on the post of Care Taker for about 9 years on contract basis and the wages paid to him may not be recovered. In case if his services are terminated, at this stage, it is quite likely that he may approach the court for justice. The Governing Body agreed to reduce the criterion of qualification indicating the job of Care Taker did not require a graduate degree." 16. In case if his services are terminated, at this stage, it is quite likely that he may approach the court for justice. The Governing Body agreed to reduce the criterion of qualification indicating the job of Care Taker did not require a graduate degree." 16. A glance of para No. 17 would reveal that the Governing Body itself considered the case of the petitioner for he had been worked on the post of "Care Taker" for almost nine years on contract basis and termination of his services, at that stage, would impel the employee to have recourse of the remedy before the court of law, and therefore, agreed to reduce the criterion of qualification indicating that the job of "Care Taker" did not require a graduate degree. 17. By now, the petitioner has completed more than twenty years of service with the respondents. The averments made by the counsel for the respondents referring to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Uma Devi (3) & Ors. (supra), are with reference to daily wage employees whereas in the instant case at hand, the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis with the terms and conditions reduced to writing. The Rules of 1998, though contemplated requirement of a graduate degree, but the respondents did not terminate the employment of the petitioner for that reason rather he was continued. Instead of regularising the services of the petitioner, the respondents continued to renew his contractual appointment until institution of the present writ application. On receipt of a notice of the writ application, his services were terminated on 31st March, 2014. However, this court in the connected writ application stayed the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 31st March, 2014 vide an interim order dated 22nd April, 2014, and the petitioner has been continued since then. 18. The stand of the respondents while assailing their own action on the pretex of the requirement of educational qualifications, cannot be appreciated in the face of observations made by the Governing Body itself in its meeting held on 5th March, 2005, while dealing with the criterion of qualification, for the job of Care Taker did not require a graduate degree. 19. In the case of State of Assam & Anr. 19. In the case of State of Assam & Anr. v. Raghava Rajgopalachari; 1972 SLR (SC) 44 ; the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land held that the authority cannot attack its own order as respondent/s. the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13, reads thus:- "13. The learned counsel for the State sought to argue before us that the date 16th March, 1954, occuring in the order dated January 28, 1964, was mentioned due to mistake and the proper date which should have been mentioned was the date of superannuation, namely, June 30, 1953. He says that the order dated July, 23, 1953, continuing the services of the petitioner after the date of superannuation was bad in view of the rulling of this court in State of Assam v. Padma Ram Borth AIR 1965 SC 473 . But we are unable to appreciate how he is entitled to raise the point. The Writ was brought to challenge this order. No such petition, even if it be competent, was filed by the State itself. The respondent to a Writ Petition cannot be allowed to attack its own order as a respondent." 20. In the case of P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti; 1998 (6) SCC 507 , dealing with the doctrine of election, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that one cannot approbate and reprobate, for the principle inheres in the doctrine of election, which is based on rule of estoppel. Dealing with the doctrine of the election, the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land, observed thus: "8. The doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel-the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate inheres in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one of the species of estoppel in pais (or equitable estoppel) which is a rule in equity. By that rule, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. (vide Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn.)" 21. By now, it is well settled that the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons should be treated alike by extending same benefit. For, not doing so, would amount to discriminate and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 22. By now, it is well settled that the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons should be treated alike by extending same benefit. For, not doing so, would amount to discriminate and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 22. Having regard to the singular facts of the instant case at hand, the respondents were obliged to extend the benefit or regularisation to the petitioner who had been working on contractual basis for last so many years and by now twenty years. This fact was also taken care of by the Governing Body of the respondent-Bureau as would be reflected from para No. 17 of the minutes of the meeting convened on 5th March, 2005. 23. The petitioner, by now has completed more than twenty years of service and the requirement of educational qualification of a graduate degree has also been dispensed with, therefore, the respondents are required to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. 24. No other point was raised for consideration of this Court by either of the parties. 25. For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. 26. In the result, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, if he is otherwise eligible. This exercise shall be concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 27. In view of the final adjudication in the instant writ application, no further orders are required to be passed in the connected matter i.e. SBCWP No.3967/2014.The stay application stands closed.Writ petition allowed. *******