JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The petitioner by this writ petition has assailed the order dated 13.7.2001 whereby the Additional Regional Development Commissioner C.A.D. Chambal, Kota directed the petitioner to be relieved of his duties treating him as a daily wager and by retrenching him in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1947'). The order dated 13.7.2001 was passed mentioning that there was no post available in the circle for a daily wage employee. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on muster roll basis on the daily wage labourer w.e.f. 1.11.1984 and his services were dispensed with wrongfully by the Department on 26.8.1985. Thereafter, he raised a dispute before the Labour Court and an award was passed in his favour on 29.5.1998 holding that the removal as unjustified and illegal with directions to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50 % back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1964') were applicable to the respondent and in terms of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1964, the petitioner who was at muster roll was treated to be as work-charge employee. He was therefore not to be treated as a daily waged employee and the order of proposed retrenchment based on the reason that there is no post of daily wage employee was bad in law. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the reply which has been filed by respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner was removed on account of coming into force of the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1999') whereunder Section 9 it was provided to remove the existing daily wage employees. Section 9 of the Act of 1999 has already been declared ultravires by this court in the case of Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Karmachari Sangh Versus State of Rajasthan & Others (SBCWP No.1376/1985) decided on 9.10.1991. In view thereof, the action of the respondents was illegal and the order of termination deserves to be set aside. Section 9 of the Act of 1999 has already been declared ultravires by this court in the case of Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Karmachari Sangh Versus State of Rajasthan & Others (SBCWP No.1376/1985) decided on 9.10.1991. In view thereof, the action of the respondents was illegal and the order of termination deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the order passed by the Labour Court the petitioner was required to be treated as on work-charge basis from 1.11.1984 and in the terms of the Rules of 1964 the petitioner was required to be granted status of semi-permanency on completion of two years of service and permanency on completion of 10 years of service. Thus he was to be treated as a permanent work-charge employee w.e.f. 1.11.1994. 3. Learned counsel further points out that the State Government has taken a policy decision to take over all the workcharge employees working in the various department governed under the Rules of 1964 vide its order dated 4.3.1993. Thus, all the work-charge employees of C.A.D. were also taken over as in regular establishment and treated as class-IV employees/ LDCs. Another writ petition preferred by a work-charge employees of the C.A.D. claiming such relief had been declared infructuous by this court after the relief was granted by the State Government. The case of the petitioner cannot be distinguished from the other similarly situated work-charge employees who have been granted relief and were placed in the regular establishment. The petitioner was therefore entitled to get all the benefits as an employee of the regular establishment. Learned counsel also points out that the petitioner has attained superannuation on 28.2.2019 and was thus required to be granted the benefits as available under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1951') and Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1996') treating him on the regular establishment from the year 1984 itself. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was a daily wager and after having been reinstated he was placed as daily wager alone. Treating him as daily wager employee therefore the Department in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1999 proposed to retrench his services. The said provision only been declared ultravires lateron and therefore the decision of the department cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. Treating him as daily wager employee therefore the Department in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1999 proposed to retrench his services. The said provision only been declared ultravires lateron and therefore the decision of the department cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. As regards, claim of the petitioner to be treated as work-charge employee, since the petitioner was not in service at the time when the judgment was passed in the case of Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Karmachari Sangh (supra), the benefit of granting work-charge status to the petitioner could not be extended. 5. I have considered the submissions. 6. Once an order of termination is declared bad in law and there are directions for reinstatement, the reinstatement would naturally relate back from the date the termination order was passed. Hence, the presumption in law would have to be taken that the petitioner would be deemed to be continuing in service from the date his termination was set aside. Thus, the petitioner will have to be treated as continuous in service from 1.11.1984 without any break. Accordingly, the judgment passed in Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Karmachari Sangh (supra) would have an equal application on the petitioner. Even otherwise, Rule 2 of the Rules of 1964 would have an application independently on the petitioner and he would be deemed to be a work-charge employee as he was admittedly placed on muster roll. Accordingly, the benefit under the Rules of 1964 was required to be extended to the petitioner upon his reinstatement and he would acquire the status of semi-permanency on completion of 2 years of service and permanency on completion of 10 years of service w.e.f. 1.11.1994. The petitioner would therefore have to be treated to be a work-charge employee for all intents and purpose and as and when the other employees of the department have been taken over in the regular establishment, the petitioner was also entitled to be taken over on regular establishment and granted the status of the Class-IV employees considering that he would be on the lowest status under the Rules of 1964 as labourers. 7. 7. This court also notices that the writ petition preferred by other employees who were working on work-charge basis has been declared infructuous after the State Government has taken all of them on regular establishment, a different treatment could not have been given to the petitioner merely because his writ petition was pending. 8. Be that as it may, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the service of the petitioner would be deemed to be on work-charge basis and thereafter on regular establishment of the State Government under the Rules of 1951, taking into consideration that the petitioner would complete 10 years of service on 1.11.1994, he would get the benefit of grant of pension under the Rules of 1996. Accordingly, the order whereby the services of the petitioner were sought to be retrenched is found to be illegal and unjustified. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Taking into consideration that this writ petition is pending for long, the relief clause is modified and the relief is molded with directions to the respondents to treat the petitioner as permanent work-charge employee w.e.f. 1.11.1994 and to take him over in the regular establishment under the Rules of 1951 from the date other employees have been taken over. 9. In terms of the decision taken by the State Government, the respondents would accordingly pass orders and after calculating his complete service from 1.11.1984, would grant him pension and all other retiral benefits. In the case of Prem Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Civil Appeal No.6798/2019) decided on 2.9.2019. Bench of three Judges of Supreme Court held as under:- "There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of work-charged period in case it has been rendered before regularisation. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work-charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classification. 33. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make the Rule 3(8) valid and non discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or nonpensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. 34. In view of the note appended to Rule 3(8), which we have read down, the provision contained in Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations has to be struck down as also the instructions contained in Para 669 of the Financial Handbook. 35. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension." 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to conduct an exercise, as stated above, within a period of three months and release consequential benefits. 11. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.