JUDGMENT 1. This intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellants-State aggrieved against the order dated 29.7.2008 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner has been allowed and though prayer for grant of benefit of regularisation w.e.f. 5.5.1986 has been rejected, it has been directed that the petitioner will be entitled for benefit of regularisation as well as regular pay-scale with all consequential benefits from the date of amendment in Rule 25(10) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 ('the Rules'), which is 12.10.1992. 2. The respondent-petitioner, joined the services of the appellants w.e.f. 5.5.1986 as Nidhi Lipik and continued as such for a long time. Where after, the petitioner approached this Court for regularisation by filing SBCWP No.473/1993, which came to be decided by order dated 6.1.2000, it was directed as under:- "This petition is allowed. It is declared that the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 did apply to the services of the petitioner and she was entitled to be considered for regularisation under Rule 25(10) of the Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957. It is further directed that the respondents shall consider that decide the case of the petitioner for regularisation within a period of three months from now and shall give here benefits which will accrue to her after her service are regularised within a period of two months from the date of such decision for regularisation by the Authorities. There shall be no order as to costs." 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the respondents passed an order dated 18.5.2004 giving the regular pay-scale to the petitioner. It was further indicated that the petitioner would have to undergo the test in terms of Rule 25(10) of the Rules. The petitioner passed the test in 2005, the present writ petition was filed, seeking regularisation w.e.f. 5.5.1986 with consequential relief as indicated herein-before. 4. The writ petition was contested by the respondents, inter-alia submitting that the petitioner has been rightly granted regularisation w.e.f. 18.5.2005 and there is no substance in the writ petition, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. 4. The writ petition was contested by the respondents, inter-alia submitting that the petitioner has been rightly granted regularisation w.e.f. 18.5.2005 and there is no substance in the writ petition, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled for benefit of regularisation from the date of amendment made in the Rules as due to inaction on part of the respondents benefit of amendment was not extended to the petitioner and the petitioner was wrongly denied benefit of regularisation from the date of amendment in the Rules and granted the relief as noticed herein-before. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition, as the respondent was provided regularisation in terms of the provisions of Rule 25(10) and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. In the earlier round of litigation, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by order dated 6.1.2000 and after the special appeal by Division Bench of this Court and Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court were rejected, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for regularisation under Rule 25(10) of the Rules, which provision reads as under:- "Rule 25. Appointments to the lowest grades - (1)- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (2)- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (3)- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (4)- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (5)- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (6)- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (7)- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (8)- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (9)- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (10)-Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 7, all persons appointed as L.D.Cs. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (6)- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (7)- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (8)- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (9)- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (10)-Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 7, all persons appointed as L.D.Cs. on adhoc basis or on daily wages basis during the period from 1.1.85 to 31.3.90 and are still working as such on the date this amendment comes into force shall be appointed on regular basis on availability of vacancy subject to the condition that they pass a performance test conducted by the head of the department concerned within a period of three years in accordance with the syllabus prescribed in part-IV of Schedule-I. Such persons shall be allowed three chances to pass the said test to be availed within a period of three years : Provided that if a person fails to pass the said test in three chances to be availed within a period of three years, he shall be liable to be removed from services." 10. A bare look at the said provision would reveal that all the persons appointed as LDCs on adhoc basis or on daily wages basis during the period 1.1.1985 to 31.3.1990 were to be appointed on regular basis on availability of vacancy subject to the condition of passing a performance test within a period of three years and on failure to pass the test, the person would be liable to be removed from service. 11. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as LDC vide Annexure-1 on account of resignation given by one Tara Chand as Nidhi Lipik on the vacant post by order dated 5.5.1986. In terms of the requirement of Rule 25(10), the petitioner was entitled having been appointed between 1.1.1985 to 31.3.1990, working on the date when the amendment came into force i.e. 12.10.1992 and from Annexure-1, it is clear that she was appointed against a vacant post, therefore, the third requirement of availability of vacancy also stands fulfilled. 12. The requirement to pass performance test, is a requirement to get the confirmation and it cannot be said that on the day, person passes the performance test, he would be regularised on the said date. 13. 12. The requirement to pass performance test, is a requirement to get the confirmation and it cannot be said that on the day, person passes the performance test, he would be regularised on the said date. 13. In view of the express language of the provision, the respondent was, therefore, entitled to regularisation immediately on commencement of the amendment i.e. 12.10.1992 and therefore, it cannot be said that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge requires any interference in this appeal. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******