JUDGMENT : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as sweeper by the respondent-department on daily wages on 02.04.2080. The services of the petitioner were retrenched on 26.05.1982, aggrieved against which he preferred an appeal before the labour Court. Vide award dated 09.06.2005, the labour Court directed for his reinstatement and also allowed an amount of Rs. 2,500/- as compensation to him. In pursuance to the award of the labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated on 09.06.2006 again on daily wages i.e. on the same status. 2. Meanwhile, as the persons junior to the petitioner were regularized and were accorded the permanent status, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13650/2012. The writ petition of the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 05.02.2014 and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. v. Uma Devi & ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , so also as per the amendment made in Rules vide notification dated 27.02.2009 issued by the Government. By the order, it was specifically observed that if the petitioner is found entitled for regularization, then the benefit of regularization and pay-scale would be granted to him from the date the same was granted to his junior with all consequential benefits. 3. The department preferred an appeal against the said order dated 05.02.2014 which was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2016. Even after the dismissal of the Special Appeal of the State, the petitioner was not granted the benefit of regularization. He filed representation before the authorities but the same was rejected vide order dated 24.05.2016 on the ground that the notification of the Government provided to the effect that the employees who had completed 10 years of service on 10.04.2006 would be regularized whereas, the petitioner had even entered into the service on 09.06.2006. It was, therefore, held that the petitioner would not be entitled for regularization and therefore, his representation was rejected. Against the rejection of the representation, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 4. It was, therefore, held that the petitioner would not be entitled for regularization and therefore, his representation was rejected. Against the rejection of the representation, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has in support of the submissions relied upon the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 347/2019 (Jai Narayan Vyas University v. Mukesh Sharma); D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 603/2021 (State of Rajasthan v. Krishna Kumar Saini); D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 729/2016 (State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Vishakha Devi). Counsel also submitted that two similarly situated employees namely Raj Kumar and Gulab Chand were the persons junior to him and they have been appointed on regular pay scale w.e.f. 07.08.1997. 5. Per contra, counsel for the respondents has submitted that in pursuance to the award of the labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated on 09.06.2006 and that can only be the date of his actual appointment. Counsel further stated that as the petitioner was a daily wager, he could not be treated as a regular employee appointed on a regular sanctioned post. Counsel submitted that therefore in terms of the notification dated 27.06.2009, the petitioner did not complete his 10 years of service on 10.04.2006 and consequently, was not entitled to be regularized. 6. So far as the regularization being granted to the similarly situated employees i.e. Raj Kumar and Gulab Chand is concerned, counsel for the respondents submitted that firstly, they were not similarly situated persons as they had completed 10 years of service on 10.04.2006 and secondly, even if a wrong had been done once by the department, the same cannot be continued in perpetuity and no employee can claim any right on basis of any wrong done in favour of the other employees. In support of the submissions, counsel relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 and State of Odisha & Anr. v. Anup Kumar Senapati & Anr. reported in (2019) 19 SCC 626 . 7. Counsel further submitted that the ratio as laid down in Uma Devi's case (supra) was clearly, as stated in the judgment itself, a one time measure and therefore the same could not be applied in continuity till date. v. Anup Kumar Senapati & Anr. reported in (2019) 19 SCC 626 . 7. Counsel further submitted that the ratio as laid down in Uma Devi's case (supra) was clearly, as stated in the judgment itself, a one time measure and therefore the same could not be applied in continuity till date. Counsel for the respondent has also submitted that even if the ratio as laid down in Uma Devi's case (supra) is to be applied, the petitioner cannot be benefited by the same as he had continued in service because of the intervention of the courts and therefore as laid down in Uma Devi's case (supra) itself, the said ratio would not apply to him. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In the opinion of this Court, all the issues as raised by counsel for the respondents have been considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Kumar Saini's case (supra) and therefore, no further adjudication on the issues is required to be done in the present matter. 10. So far as the argument of the counsel for the respondents that the ratio laid down in Uma Devi's case is a one time measure and that ratio would not apply in the matter of employees who were continued with the intervention of the Court, the same has been dealt with and decided in Krishna Kumar Saini's case as under: "15. Culmination of the above decisions would be that the directions in case of Umadevi (supra) cannot be seen as providing a rigid cut-off date for applying the principle of 10 years of completion of engagement without Court intervention. Any such argument would give a complete license to the State and its authorities to continue to engage persons on casual basis and to refuse to recognize any of their rights even after decades of such engagement by citing the cut-off date referred to by the Supreme Court in case of Umadevi (supra). This has been duly explained by Supreme Court in case of Kesari (supra) and Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra). In the present case, we may recall, many of these petitioners were engaged against sanctioned posts and clear vacancies long before the decision in case of Umadevi (supra) was rendered. This has been duly explained by Supreme Court in case of Kesari (supra) and Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra). In the present case, we may recall, many of these petitioners were engaged against sanctioned posts and clear vacancies long before the decision in case of Umadevi (supra) was rendered. Even after the Constitution Bench rendered its judgment in case of Umadevi (supra) in the year 2006, without any intervention from Courts all these engagements continued till June, 2017. Thus in some cases for over a decade after the decision in case of Umadevi (supra) this casual engagements continued. Curiously if the argument of the Government was that on account of the decision in case of Umadevi (supra) such engagements cannot be regularized, it would be a contradiction in term when the State made fresh engagements on casual basis long after the judgment in case of Umadevi (supra) was rendered. Subject to fulfilling the conditions provided in case of Umadevi (supra) as explained in later decisions in case of Kesari (supra) and Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra), these petitioners would deserve consideration for regularization." 11. In view of the ratio as laid down in the above judgments and especially in Krishna Kumar Saini's case (supra), the present petition deserves to be allowed and therefore is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.05.2016 is quashed. 12. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner upon completion of 10 years from the date of his reinstatement, i.e., 09.06.2006. He shall be paid notionally for the past period and actual differences of the salary shall be paid from the date of this judgment. The said exercise be done by the department within a period of two months from the date of this order.