JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.08.2011 and the appellate order dated 26.09.2011. Vide the impugned order dated 18.08.2011, the services of the petitioner had been terminated on the premise that he had breached the conditions of the contract and vide the appellate order dated 26.09.2011 it has been informed to the petitioner that his appeal is not maintainable in terms of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "Standing Orders") of the Department. 2. At the outset, it has been argued by counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was a contractual employee and therefore, the Standing Orders of 1965 would not apply to the present petitioner. He therefore, submitted that the appellate authority was right in holding that the appeal of the petitioner was not maintainable. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver-cum-Conductor in pursuance to the advertisement dated 16.02.2005 and he continued to work on the said post till the first order of termination dated 24.02.2010 was passed against him. The said order of termination was passed against him on the premise that there were six passengers found in his vehicle who were travelling without ticket. 4. Aggrieved against the order dated 24.02.2010, the petitioner preferred an original suit before the Civil Court and vide an interim order dated 04.03.2010 the Civil Court directed that no action against the petitioner would be taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. 5. In pursuance to the interim order passed by the Civil Court, a show cause notice dated 26.07.2011 was issued by the Department to the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted in the matter. On 29.07.2011, the inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer who found the petitioner to be guilty. In pursuance to the same the services of the petitioner were again terminated on 18.08.2011. Against the said order an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority which was not entertained by the appellate authority on the ground that the standing orders governing the service of the employees of the respondent Corporation do not apply to him. 6. Against the said order an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority which was not entertained by the appellate authority on the ground that the standing orders governing the service of the employees of the respondent Corporation do not apply to him. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the advertisement dated 16.02.2005 vide which the petitioner was appointed, specifically provided that after completion of three years of satisfactory services, the employee would be posted as a 'driver' on a regular pay scale. He submitted that when the respondent Corporation did not act upon the said condition of the advertisement, many other similarly situated persons approached this Court and vide judgment dated 19.01.2011 in the matter of Shanker Lal & Ors. v. The State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 7682/2009) the services of such employees were directed to be regularized and the respondents were directed to grant regular pay scale to such employees. The said judgment passed in Shanker Lal's case (supra) was affirmed by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 796/2011 (RSRTC Jaipur & Anr. v. Shanker Lal & Ors.) decided on 07.12.2011 and further the SLP filed by the respondent Corporation before the Hon'ble Apex Court was dismissed on 13.04.2012. 7. Counsel submitted that after the passing of the judgment in Shanker Lal's case (supra) an office order dated 13.01.2014 was passed by the Department itself vide which it was specifically directed that all those employees who had been appointed in pursuance to the advertisement of the year 2005 and who have completed three years of satisfactory services would be regularized on a regular pay scale. Therefore the petitioner can by no stretch of imagination be considered to be a contractual employee. 8. Counsel submitted that in the year 2011 when he had been terminated, he had, already by virtue of law, attained the capacity of a regular employee although no specific orders had been passed by the Department till that date. He therefore argued that the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents that the standing orders of the Department would not apply to the petitioner as he is a contractual employee, falls flat on the face of it. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. He therefore argued that the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents that the standing orders of the Department would not apply to the petitioner as he is a contractual employee, falls flat on the face of it. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. A bare perusal of the ratio as laid down in Shanker Lal's case (supra) makes it clear that the issue is no more res-integra and admittedly, most of the employees of the respondent Corporation appointed in pursuance to the advertisement dated 16.02.2005 have been regularized after completion of three years of satisfactory service. Therefore, the present petitioner, admittedly being a similarly situated employee, cannot be considered to be a contractual employee as of date and the sole argument raised by counsel for the respondents is hence, not tenable. Resultantly, the communication dated 26.09.2011 (Annexure-10) issued by the appellate authority whereby it has been held that the present petitioner would not be governed by the standing orders of the respondent Corporation being totally erroneous, deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority for decision afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The appellate authority need not issue fresh notice to the parties. It is directed that both the parties would remain present before the appellate authority on 01.08.2022. The appellate authority would decide the matter within a period of 3 months thereafter. 12. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. 13. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.