JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs: "(a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of helper from the date of his initial appointment. (b) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner regular pay scale on the post of Helper with effect from the date the persons junior to him have been allowed the said benefit. (c) By an appropriate writ, order and direction the respondents may be directed to pay entire arrear of wages to the petitioner with 12% p.a. interest from the date of due to the date of actual payment. (d) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioners." 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wages employee from 26.06.1985. He was initially assigned the work of Jaldhari and to clean vehicles of the respondents department. Services of the petitioner were terminated on 14.09.1989. Aggrieved of this termination, the petitioner approached the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute. The learned Labour Court on a reference being made adjudicated the same and vide order dated 14.09.1989 held that the termination of the petitioner is illegal and bad. Therefore, the petitioner was held to be in continuous service of the department with the directions for reinstatement and payment of wages of 50% were awarded. 3. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation filed a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2444/2003 assailing the validity of order dated 14.09.1989 passed by learned Labour Court and after hearing the parties the writ petition was dismissed on 08.01.2002 by the following observations:- "Learned Labour Court after adjudication of dispute and taking note of material on record, recorded a finding of fact about working of respondent workman from 26.06.1985 to 14.09.1989 and certainly for the period of services rendered by him, he had worked fro more than 240 days in preceding 12 months of his termination and the petitioner was under obligation to comply with Section 25-F of the Act, 1947. The finding recorded by Labour Court based on material on record, this Court finds no manifest error or infirmity warranting interference therein. The finding recorded by Labour Court based on material on record, this Court finds no manifest error or infirmity warranting interference therein. As regards back wages, respondent workman has specifically averred not only in statement of claim but also in his statement/ affidavit recorded during adjudication of Reference, about the fact that he remained unemployed as a result of impugned termination - against which no contrary material has been placed on record, in the opinion of this Court, learned Labour Court has exercised its judicious discretion in granting 50% back wages in the facts of instant case, which does not call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs." 4. In view of the above, the petitioner was reinstated in services and is continuously performing his duties in the respondent Corporation. 5. The petitioner further submits that he is still getting remuneration on daily wages. When his case for regularisation was not considered by the respondent department, the petitioner served a notice of demands for justice on 05.02.2009 to the respondent corporation but till date no action has been taken. 6. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that similarly situated junior persons namely one Shri Gurupal Singh is performing similar duties but he has been paid the salary in the regular pay scale. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents in not extending the benefits of regular pay scale and regularising his services is absolutely illegal and arbitrary so as to the volative of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh reported in [2016] 0 Supreme (SC) 869" wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 55 has held as under:- "In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation." 8. The counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the petitioner and he submits that whatever was due to the petitioner in pursuance of directions given by the Labour Court and affirmed by this Court in above said writ petition has been complied with. The petitioner is not entitled for regularisation as he has approached this Court after a gross delay. 9. He further submits that case of the petitioner is totally different to the case of Gurupal Singh. 10. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgments of this Court in "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7018/2011 Ram Bharosi Parashar v. Managing Director RSRTC and Ors." decided on 12.08.2011 wherein this Court has held that recovery proceedings initiated in the year 1996 towards the losses caused in performance of the duties being daily wager as a driver cannot be entertained after a period of fifteen years, the writ petition, therefore, was dismissed on the ground of delay. 11. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The reinstatement of the petitioner has been ordered by the learned Labour Court holding therein that the continuity of service of the petitioner shall be maintained and same has been upheld by this Court in the writ petition challenged by the corporation. The petitioner in pursuance of the above judgment was reinstated and is continuously performing the duties assigned to him by the corporation even today. The petitioner in pursuance of the above judgment was reinstated and is continuously performing the duties assigned to him by the corporation even today. Therefore, if a request has been made on behalf of the petitioner to consider his case for regularisation or for payments of a regular pay scale, the same is just and proper. It is legitimate expectation of an employee who is performing the same duties as are being performed by the persons who are regularly posted in the Department. 12. If an employee is serving in the Department for last more than a decade then it is expected of a welfare state to consider the just claim of such persons as a model employer. Merely because a person has taken recourse to the legal forums for the redressal of his grievances cannot be taken to be a ground for not considering the legitimate claim of an employee which is otherwise due to him. 13. The judgment relied upon by counsel for the respondent is having no application in the present case as petitioner has approached the court without any delay. 14. The up shot of the above discussion is that the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation/regular pay scale within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.