ORDER : 1. These writ petition have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the facts and prayer clauses are being taken from the leading case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11058/2023: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class iv) Service Rules, 1964 as amended by the impugned Notification dated 27.01.2011 (Annex.1) may kindly be declared ultra virus and illegal to the extent regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of issuance of appointment order. A further direction be issued to the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Mait either from the date of eligibility of the petitioner i.e. 10.04.2006 or from the date of issuance of notification dated 27.01.2011 (Annex.1.). Any other relief of which petitioners appears entitle to may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court are that the respondents made an amendment in Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class iv) Service Rules 1964 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 1964’) for the purpose of regularization vide Notification dated 27.01.2011. The Notification dated 27.01.2011 reads as follows: “In exercise of powers conferred under Section 337 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (Act No. 10 of 2009), the State Government hereby makes following rules further to amend the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964, namely: 1. Short title and commencement: (1) Those rules may be called the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2011. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. Short title and commencement: (1) Those rules may be called the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2011. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. Amendment of Rule 10: In rule 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964 after the existing proviso, the following new provisions shall be added, namely: “Provided further that the persons, irregularly appointed on duly sanctioned posts and completed ten years service on 10.04.2006, without intervention of any court, and continuously working as such on the date of commencement of these amendment rules, shall be screened by a committee consisting of: (i) Chairperson of the Municipalities Chairperson (ii) Deputy Director (Regional) Member (iii) Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipality Member Secretary Provided they were eligible for appointment, as per rules on the date of their initial irregular appointment and vacancy is available at the time of screening. The Appointment Authority shall issue appointment order of the person, who is adjudged suitable by the Screening Committee and appointment shall be effective from the date of issue of such appointment order. Provided also that the inter-se seniority of the persons screened under above proviso shall be determined on the basis of their length of such continuous service in the Municipality after their irregular appointment. These persons shall rank junior to the persons appointed regularly before the commencement of these amendment rules.” 2.1. After such amendment to Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964, the respondents kept on contemplating the regularization of the petitioners, but did not do the same. However, on 04.09.2017, vide Annex-13 to the writ petition, a committee was constituted to give effect to the aforesaid notification. After such amendment to Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964, the respondents kept on contemplating the regularization of the petitioners, but did not do the same. However, on 04.09.2017, vide Annex-13 to the writ petition, a committee was constituted to give effect to the aforesaid notification. The said committee, consisting of Chairman, Deputy Director, Commissioner, made a detailed contemplation of the petitioners’ case, the relevant para detailing the contemplation of the present petitioner reads as follows: ^^Jh ujsUæ flag dh tUe fnukad 01-07-1968 gSA Jh flag 8 d{kk mÙkh.kZ gSA vk;qDr uxjifj"kn~ Mwaxjiwj }kjk fn;s x, Áek.k&i=ksa vuqlkj fnukad 10-04-2006 dks bUgsa fujUrj dk;Z djrs gq, 10 o"kZ dh lsok;sa iw.kZ gks pqdh gSaA orZeku esa fujarj dk;kZy; uxjifj"kn Mwaxjiqj esa foxr 26 o"kksZ ls dk;Z dj jgs gSaA Jh flag }kjk ÁLrqr larku laca/kh ?kks"k.kk vuqlkj fnukad 01-06-2002 rd budh dqy 2 larku gksdj blds i'pkr~ dksbZ larku o`f) ugha gqbZ gSA ifj"kn~ esa 1 esV dk in fjDr gSA vr% Jh ujsUæ flag dks esVs ds in fu;fer fd;s tkus dh vuq"ka’kk dh tkrh gSA** 2.2. The respondents thus arrived at a conclusion that in tandem with the circular/ notification dated 27.01.2011, the petitioner had completed 10 years of continuous service on or before 10.04.2006, and thus, was eligible to be regularized. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners informs this Court that in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 10807/2023, 11066/2023 & 11608/2023, the petitioners are aggrieved by the amendment to Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Services) Rules, 1963, as amended by impugned notification dated 16.05.2011 whereas in other writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the amendment to Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class iv) Service Rules 1964, as amended by impugned notification dated 27.01.2011. In all the instant writ petitions, the petitioners seek benefit of regularization effective from the date of the State’s Notification dated 16.05.2011/ 27.01.2011 asserting that they had completed 10 years of continuous service without intervention of the Court before 10.04.2006 and thus, the factual and legal analogies of all these writ petitions are substantially similar. 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the regularization should have been done w.e.f. 10.04.2006, when the petitioners had completed 10 years of continuous service, and a common decision was taken vide Notification dated 16.05.2011/27.01.2011 for regularization of their services. 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the regularization should have been done w.e.f. 10.04.2006, when the petitioners had completed 10 years of continuous service, and a common decision was taken vide Notification dated 16.05.2011/27.01.2011 for regularization of their services. Thus, he seeks regularization of the petitioner’s services from 10.06.2006 or from the date of issuance of notification dated 16.05.2011/27.01.2011. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the decision of regularization, which was taken on 04.09.2017, ought to apply prospectively and cannot be given retrospective effect. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner’s grounds for challenging Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964, as amended by the Notification dated 27.01.2011, do not withstand scrutiny and ought to be upheld. However, he submits that the regularization as demanded by the petitioner can neither be given from 10.04.2006 and nor it can be given from 27.01.2011, when the same was notified. 4.1 Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court: (i) State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Chandra Ram, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 589/2015, decided in July, 2017 (ii) Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Smt. Magi H. Desai, Civil Appeal No. 1787/2023 decided on 24.03.2023 5. After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the petitioners have completed 10 years of continuous service before 10.04.2006. The petitioners were seeking regularization which was being considered and then a common decision was subsequently arrived at by the respondents, in which, it was notified that such candidates, who have completed 10 years of continuous services and were appointed upto 10.04.2006, without intervention of the Court, then such persons shall be screened and given appointment on regular basis. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute regarding regularization was resolved by the respondents themselves through the Notification of 27.01.2011, whereby a considered decision was taken by the Government to amend the Rule 10 of Rules of 1964, providing a scope of regularization to the persons, who have served more than 10 years of continuous service on or before 10.04.2006, and admittedly, as per Annex-13 of the writ petition, the petitioners have served continuous services for more than 10 years before 10.04.2006, which is substantiated by the report of the Committee. 7. 7. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, given that once it is undisputed that the petitioners had completed 10 years of continuous services on or before 10.04.2006, and considering the uniform notification by the State Government amending Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964, the provisions are squarely applicable to the present petitioners, making them entitled to be regularized/benefit from the decision introduced by the respondents effective from 27.01.2011. Any lethargic decision making on the part of the respondents cannot deprive the petitioners of the uniform decision taken by the respondents themselves while keeping in tandem the facts that they had completed 10 years of continuous service and also the Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964, which has been amended by the Government. 8. The precedent judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable in the present case, because those judgments deal with regular regularization, disputes regarding 10 years of service, and retrospectivity whereas in the present case, there is no such dispute involved, because the respondents took a considered decision to amend the law, particularly Rule 10 of the Rules 1964, by introducing the notification dated 27.01.2011. This notification was intended to provide regularization benefits to persons in continuous service who had completed 10 years of service before 10.04.2006, without intervention of the Court. 9. Consequently, there is no question of retrospectivity, as the State itself has taken a considered view to regularize such persons by amending the statute. Once a statute has been amended for the welfare of employees, particularly Safaikarmis and LDC (to which the present petitions relate), and such amendment has been implemented with the petitioners conforming to the parameters laid down in the amendment of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964, a lethargic consideration cannot become grounds for denying the person benefits of regularization from the date the decision was made by the State itself. 10. This Court is in agreement with the respondents that the petitioners did not provide any ground in the submission today to make out a case for any intervention in the statute of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964, which has been sought in their prayers. 10. This Court is in agreement with the respondents that the petitioners did not provide any ground in the submission today to make out a case for any intervention in the statute of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964, which has been sought in their prayers. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that once there is a legislation Notification dated 27.01.2011, whereby a uniform decision has been taken amending Rule 10 of the Rules of 1964 that all those persons who have completed 10 years of continuous service, without intervention of the Court, upto 10.04.2006, and such factual matrix is not disputed by the respondents, then the benefit ought to accrue to such persons w.e.f. 16.05.2011/27.01.2011. The prayer for granting regularization from 2006 onwards cannot be granted to the petitioners, because in 2006, no Policy, Rules, or Statute existed that could have accrued to the petitioners regarding right to regularization. 11. Thus, the writ petitions is accordingly allowed to that extent and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and give all necessary notional benefits of regularization effective from the date of the State’s Notification dated 16.05.2011/27.01.2011, when the petitioners had completed 10 years of continuous service without intervention of the Court, before 10.04.2006. Accordingly, the notional benefits shall be given to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.05.2011/27.01.2011 for regular services. 12. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.