ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs: “(a) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records from the courts below pertaining to the case of the petitioners for perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (b) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 27.09.2001 (Annexure P-1) being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. (c) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 27.06.2009 (Annexure P-2) being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) Cost of the proceedings. (e) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and contrary to the law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order of termination of the petitioner has been passed in complete and utter violation of the spirit of the order of the Labour Court and without complying with the mandatory provisions of the labour laws, which have been framed with a pious object to safeguard the interest of the labour being the weaker section of the society. Learned counsel further submits that the representation of the petitioner ought to have been answered in favour of the petitioner in view of the fact that other similarly situated employees, who have also been termination from the service, have been regularized in service vide order dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure P/6). The authority deciding the representation of the petitioner ought to have kept in mind that twice the termination order of the petitioner has been set aside by the Labour Court being illegal and not sustainable in law. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent State authorities have failed to see that the petitioner being the permanent employee of the establishment having served for more than ten years continuously is entitled for the minimum salary provided in the Pay Structure of the State Government for its employees. On account of inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has already crossed the age limit prescribed for getting appointment on any government post. On account of inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has already crossed the age limit prescribed for getting appointment on any government post. The action of the respondent State authorities is in utter violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights granted under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.09.2001 and 27.06.2009 (Annexure P-1 and P-2) may be set aside. 3. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 265 . 4. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was not appointed by the respondent State. He was appointed by the Commandant, Bhumi Sena as daily wager and was sent to the Department of Water Resources as Daily Wager. The petitioner initially came to work on 27.03.1991, however, on 30.04.1992, the petitioner was sent back to the office of the Commandant, Bhumi Sena as the said office was being abolished with effect from 30.04.1992. The petitioner approached the learned Labour Court by filing an application for his reinstatement and back wages. His application was allowed by the Labour Court vide order dated 17.09.1996. In compliance of the above order, the respondents State allowed the petitioner to join his work on 26.09.1996. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter, order dated 17.09.1996 passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the respondents/State before the Industrial Court by which the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the respondents made objection and on these objection, the learned Labour Court, vide its order dated 20.02.1998, made a reference to the Industrial Court bench at Indore. The Industrial Court bench at Indore passed the order dated 26.10.1999 by which the matter was again remanded back to the Labour Court and thereafter, the case was finally decided by the Labour Court on 30.11.1999, whereby the application of the petitioner was dismissed being barred by limitation. The Industrial Court bench at Indore passed the order dated 26.10.1999 by which the matter was again remanded back to the Labour Court and thereafter, the case was finally decided by the Labour Court on 30.11.1999, whereby the application of the petitioner was dismissed being barred by limitation. Learned counsel also submits that this order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the Industrial Court bench at Raipur and by order dated 30.11.1999, the matter was again remanded back to the Labour Court with a direction that the earlier order dated 15.05.1997 be complied with completely and after providing the opportunity to both the parties, the Labour Court was directed to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Section 62(1) proviso (a) and (c) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1960. Thereafter, the Labour Court passed the order dated 28.02.2001 by which the petitioner was reinstated in the services without back wages. In compliance of this order, the petitioner was reinstated. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents State had issued a circular dated 27.01.2000, wherein it was directed that the daily wager employees who are working prior to 31.12.1988 are to be continued but the services of daily wagers who are appointed after that date were not to be continued and their services should be terminated. In compliance of the above policy, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 27.09.2001, however, he was given the retrenchment compensation to the tune of Rs.17,165/- along with the wages of one month to the tune of Rs.2041/- and after receiving the retrenchment, the petitioner challenged the order of retrenchment by filing a writ petition bearing No. 2426/2001 which was decided by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 02.04.2009 by which the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation and also to file writ petition, if the future development so warrants. Thereafter, in compliance to the above order, the petitioner moved a representation, which, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has been rejected vide order dated 27.06.2009 (Annexure P/2). Thus, in the light of all orders and in the light of judgment passed in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 , this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Thus, in the light of all orders and in the light of judgment passed in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 , this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is apparent from all the documents on record that the petitioner is working since 27.03.1991. His services were discontinued and by virtue of order dated 28.02.2001 of learned Labour Court, he was reinstated in the service. The learned Labour Court, in its order dated 28.02.2001 (Annexure P/4), observed in Para 12 as under: ^^12- lgk;rk ds Á'u ij lquk x;kA vkosnd ds fgr esa rFkk vukosnd i{k ds fo#} fuEukuqlkj vkns'k ikjhr fd;k tkrk gS% 1- vkosnd dks vukosnd ds vkf/ku fu;ksftr dkexkj gksuk fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vukosnd dks vkosnd dks fu;ksDrk gksuk fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA 2- vkosnd dh lsok lekfIRk vkns'k dks voS/k o vuqfpr gksuk fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk lsok lekfIr vkns'k fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA 3- vukosnd ds fo:} vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og vkosnd dks 15 fnuksa ds vUnj lsok esa mlds iwoZ in ij iqu% LFkkfir djsA Ádj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, vkosnd fiNys osru dh jkf'k ÁkIr djus dks ik= ugha gksxk] fdUrq mldh lsok fujUrj ekuh tkosxhA 4- okn O;; mHk;i{k viuk viuk ogu djsaxsA** 7. It is also not disputed in the case that the respondent authorities by order dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure P/6) regularized the services of some of the employees, who were appointed along with the petitioner. The respondent authorities by order dated 27.09.2001 (Annexure P/1) again terminated the services of the petitioner holding that due to scarcity in work and budget, some employees working in the Department are no longer required. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition bearing W.P. No. 2426/2001 and this petition was linked with identical writ petition bearing W.P. No. 1985/2001 and during the pendency of this petition, the respondent authorities regularized the services of some of the employees by order dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure P/6) and Writ Petition No. 2426/2001 was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to file a fresh representation before the Department. This Court passed the order dated 02.04.2009, which reads thus: “At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Writ Petition with a liberty to file a representation before the concerned authority/authorities for the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition. Permission granted. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 2426/2001 is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned authority/authorities and also to file Writ Petition if future developments so warrant.” 8. However, the respondent authorities, after scrutiny, again dismissed the representation of the petition vide impugned order dated 27.06.2009 (Annexure P/2). 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amarkant Rai (supra) held in Paras 11, 12 and 13 as under: “11. Elaborating upon the principles laid down in Umadevi Case and explaining the difference between irregular and illegal appointments in State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari, this Court held as under: (M.L. Kesari Case, SCC p. 250, Para 7) “7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ‘regularisation’ enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.” 12. Applying the ratio of Umadevi Case, this Court in Nihal Singh vs. State of Punjab directed the absorption of the Special Police Officers in the services of the State of Punjab holding as under: [Nihal Singh Case, SCC pp. 79-80, Paras 35-36] “35. Applying the ratio of Umadevi Case, this Court in Nihal Singh vs. State of Punjab directed the absorption of the Special Police Officers in the services of the State of Punjab holding as under: [Nihal Singh Case, SCC pp. 79-80, Paras 35-36] “35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the post is a relevant factor with reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure of the executive government to apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State. 36. The other factor which the State is required to keep in mind while creating or abolishing posts is the financial implications involved in such a decision. The creation of posts necessarily means additional financial burden on the exchequer of the State. Depending upon the priorities of the State, the allocation of the finances is no doubt exclusively within the domain of the legislature. However, in the instant case creation of new posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the various banks at whose disposal the services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. If absorbing the appellants into the services of the State and providing benefits on a par with the police officers of similar rank employed by the State results in further financial commitment it is always open for the State to demand the banks to meet such additional burden. Apparently no such demand has b\ever been made by the State. The result is - the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks. 13. In our view, the exception carved out in Para 53 of Umadevi is applicable to the facts of the present case. The result is - the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks. 13. In our view, the exception carved out in Para 53 of Umadevi is applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no material placed on record by the respondents that the appellant has been lacking any qualification or bore any blemish record during his employment for over two decades. It is pertinent to note that services of similarly situated persons on daily wages for regularisation viz. One Yatindra Kumar Mishra who was appointed on daily wages on the post of clerk was regularised w.e.f. 1987. The appellant although initially working against unsanctioned post, the appellant was working continuously since 3-1-2002 against sanctioned post. Since there is no material placed on record regarding the details whether any other night guard was appointed against the sanctioned post, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to award monetary benefits to be paid from 1-1-2010.” 10. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka and Others vs. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747 held in Para 29 as under: “29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well settled that the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. It may be true that this Court took notice of the subsequent events, namely, that in the meantime she had also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a Category I post but the direction to create a supernumerary post to adjust her must be held to have been issued only with a view to accommodate her therein as otherwise she might have been reverted and not for the purpose of conferring a benefit to which she was not otherwise entitled to.” 11. Admittedly, during the pendency of W.P. No. 1985/2001, as many as 59 similarly situated employees were regularized by the respondent authorities by order dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure P/6) and their services were continued in the light of order dated 19.10.2001 (Annexure P/5), however, the petitioner was very unfortunate that his case for regularisation was not considered by the respondent authorities citing the reason that due to reduction in work and budget, some employees working in the department are no longer required. It is very unfortunate that the petitioner ran from pillar to pillar and gone through multiple litigations for justice vis-a-vis Labour Court, Industrial Court and this High Court but he received no justice like other workers/employees who were appointed with him in the Department and the Department vide impugned order dated 27.06.2009, dismissed the representation of the petition. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted herein as under: 12. The rejection of claim for regularization of the petitioner mainly rests on the ground that the petitioner was out of service from 27.09.2001 (Annexure P/1), however, the respondent authorities did not consider this aspect of the matter that the petitioner was in continuous service from 1991 to 1999 and by virtue of order dated 28.02.2001 (Annexure P/4), the learned Labour Court ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner in service. It has not been disputed by the Department that similarly placed other employees who were appointed along with the petitioner were regularized. As such, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in above referred cases, the petitioner is also entitled for regularisation of his service in the Department from the date when other 53 similarly situated employees were regularized. 13. In the result, the petition is allowed and respondent authorities are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner and his services be calculated from 14.08.2008, the date from which other 53 employees were regularized, till his superannuation. Thereafter, all the retiral benefits be also calculated. All this exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of order of this Court.