JUDGMENT 1. Present petition is filed with following prayers:- "(i) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent for regularisation of his services on the post of Class-IV employee with effect from 25.09.1003, the date of his initial appointment with consequential benefit to regular pay scale. (ii) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to pay him minimum in the scale of pay of Class-IV employee along with arrears of regular pay scale w.e.f. 25.09.1993 up till now with interest @ 18%. (iii) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner for promotion on the post of L.D.C./U.D.C. as per seniority of the year 1993. (iv) Any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to quash any adverse order passed against the petitioner for discontinuation of his services/retrenchment pending the writ petition. (v) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents which this Hon'ble Court deems just, and proper in the circumstances of the case. (vi) Cost of the writ petition." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed by Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer against a vacant regular post of Class-IV employee on 25.09.1993. Thereafter, he was discharging his duties of Class-IV employee in the respondent's office sincerely and has never been subjected to discontinuation or break in service. He was paid minimum wages per day since September 2003. In February 1996, the daily wagers were selected/regularized on Class-IV employee but petitioner was discriminated with and was deprived from the benefit of regularization, despite his seniority. He further submits that the petitioner was terminated on 23.11.1997. Against said termination order, petitioner raised a dispute and the same was referred to the Industrial Court, Ajmer, on the reference:- "Whether the termiantion of the workmen, Mukesh Kumar son of Anandi Lal on 23.11.1997 by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, is legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?" Vide order dated 16.06.2006, it was held that the termination was without compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act 1947 and as the juniors to the petitioner were made permanent, the workman was held entitled to permanent status and order of termination was quashed and set aside and reinstatement was made on the post with 20% back wages. Against the same, writ petition was preferred but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner joined services and it is categorically submitted that from reinstatement date, i.e. 03.03.2008, the petitioner has been discharging his duties, regularly on the post of Peon without any gap and as such the petitioner is entitled for regularization in terms of Hon'ble High Court order dated 12.08.2016 in SBCWP No. 18889/2013 titled Shiv Karan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., wherein the Hon'ble Court, in case of similarly situated persons, has held that unskilled daily wagers, appointed subsequent to the petitioner, were entitled for regularization. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Bhagwan Sahai v. Udyog Bhawan Common Facility Jaipur & anr.: 2009 (1) WLC 524 . In the said case, the petitioner was reinstated in service as his termination was held illegal. It was held that the petitioner should also be held entitled to all those benefits (including regular pay scale and regular status) from such dates as given to similarly situated persons on ground of parity. In the light of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner request to grant the prayer sought in the petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the foundation of the case of the petitioner is on wrong facts. He was given seasonal/special time engagement during course of examination which was conducted by Board of Secondary Education, Praveshika, Varishtha Upadhyay etc. wherein conduct of examination involves huge task and unskilled labour is required to be engaged in addition to regular employees. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not been engaged with Board of Secondary Education, rather he was engaged in his personal capacity and not as an employee of the Board of Secondary Education. Learned counsel for the respondent has further relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and has submitted that engagement of petitioner was through backdoor and was not done in regular manner, by way of advertisement, as was done in the case of similarly situated persons. 5. Heard the respective advocates for the petitioner as well as respondent, scanned the record of the writ petition, considered the judgment cited at bar. 6. 5. Heard the respective advocates for the petitioner as well as respondent, scanned the record of the writ petition, considered the judgment cited at bar. 6. On consideration of all, first reliance placed by this court is upon the judgment of Labour Court dated 16.06.2006, wherein after considering the termination order, the learned Tribunal/Court held that once the similarly situated persons were made permanent, the petitioner could not have been terminated. Learned Tribunal/Court has further held that in the case of Class- IV employee, there is no backdoor concept. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged and has thus attained finality. 7. It is also a fact on record, which is not disputed, that after passing of the said order, from 2008 till 2016, while filing representations, the petitioner was rendering his services uninterruptedly to the Board/respondent. It is also noted that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Bhagwan Sahai (supra) is squarely applicable in the given case as in the case of Bhagwan Sahai (supra), regular pay scale in vacant post was given to similarly situated person and in the case in hand also similarly situated/juniors to the petitioner were given regularization but the petitioner has been discriminated with and deprived of his right. Once benefit is extended to similarly situated persons, there is no justified reason to discriminate with the petitioner and he has to be entitled for the benefit. Even the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), cited by learned counsel for respondents, supports the case of the petitioner wherein it has been held that exception should be given to Class-IV employees if they have continued to work for 10 years as a one time measure. In the case in hand, it is admitted case that for the last 14+ years, after passing of order of the learned Tribunal/Court, the petitioner is rendering service uninterruptedly/prominently. It indirectly suggest that there is requirement of work and only on account of dispute, regular appointment was not made. 8. In the light of the above reasoning, considering the facts on record, this court deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner with immediate effect, within a period of three months. 9. In the above terms, writ petition is allowed.