JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has approached this Court for regularisation of his services from the date of award passed by the Labour Court on 24.02.2003. 2. Briefly the facts in the case are that services of the petitioner were terminated on 30.12.1989. The petitioner approached Labour Court and the Labour Court vide order dated 24.02.2003 while answering the reference in favour of petitioner has held that the termination of the services of the petitioner vide order dated 30.12.1989 is illegal and the petitioner was held to be in continuous service of respondent from the date of termination, but the back wages for the same period were denied. The respondent i.e. State has challenged this order of Labour Court by way of filing a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7251/2003 before this Court. This writ petition was also dismissed on 31.01.2005. Against the dismissal of this writ petition, the State Government filed a special appeal being D.B. Special Appeal No. 267/2005 the same was also dismissed upholding the award of Labour Court. The Division Bench observed as under:- "From these facts, it could be safely inferred that the respondent workman had not left the services of the appellant voluntarily as he had moved the court of District Judge for redressal of his grievance promptly in the year 1989 itself when he was alleged to have voluntarily left the services. Under the circumstance, it is not open for the appellant State to urge that he had left the services voluntarily for which no inquiry was fit to be initiated. The appellant, having failed to establish that the respondent workman had left the service voluntarily, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the award of the Labour Court by which he was granted reinstatement without back wages." 3. In pursuance of the orders passed by Labour Court and by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated by order dated 24.08.2007 as a daily wager and since then the petitioner is in continuous service of the respondent. The petitioner is working as Class-IV in the respondent Department. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the persons who are similarly situated to the petitioner their services had been regularized. 4. The petitioner is working as Class-IV in the respondent Department. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the persons who are similarly situated to the petitioner their services had been regularized. 4. The petitioner further submits that he has preferred representation to the respondents vide annexure-7 wherein he has specifically mentioned that the persons who are similarly situated to the petitioner, they are being granted regular pay scale and their service has also been regularized, therefore, the same benefit be extended to petitioner also. 5. The counsel for the respondent has opposed the submission made by the petitioner and has submitted that whatever was due to the petitioner in pursuance of the direction given by this Court and the Labour Court have been complied with. He further submits that the petitioner has not completed ten years of regular services with respondents so as to become entitled for regularisation and therefore, the case has rightly not been considered. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties. It is a matter of fact that the petitioner was serving respondent Department since 1987 and on having been retrenched by the respondent, the same has been agitated before the appropriate legal forums. The retrenchement of the petitioner has been held to be illegal and bad and, therefore, by virtue of the orders passed by learned Labour Court, the petitioner is held to be in the continuous services of respondent since 1987. 7. The judgments have categorically mentioned that the petitioner will not be entitled for any back wages but at the same time if the petitioner has served the Department for a long time it is incumbent for the welfare government to consider such case for regularisation of the service, more particularly when the persons who are similarly situated working in the same Department are getting higher pay and their services having been regularised. It is not only discriminatory but highly improper for a welfare state to ignore the just claim of a person. 8. Merely if a person has approached the legal forums for redressal of his grievances cannot be a ground to deny the legal claims of a person which he is otherwise entitled to. 9. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation within a period of three months from today and pass the appropriate orders for the same. 9. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation within a period of three months from today and pass the appropriate orders for the same. No Costs.