ORDER : I.A. No.1/2023 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to condone the delay as the appeal raises an important issue of law in the matter of consideration of cases of daily wage employees regarding their claim of regularization under the Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Amendment Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Amendment of 2009’) as promulgated vide notification dated 27.02.2009. Accordingly, application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 973/2023 1. Learned State Counsel vehemently contended before us that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is untenable in law firstly, because the learned Single Judge has not correctly applied the principle laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , in directing regularization of services of the respondent. The second submission of learned counsel for State is that the Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1999 (in short ‘Rules of 1999’) were amended vide notification dated 27.02.2009 and amendment was made in existing Rule 6, which provided for consideration of eligible daily wage employees for regularization in service. The amendment of Rule 6, as provided in sub Rule (4) thereof, shows that persons who were irregularly appointed on any duly sanctioned posts and completed 10 years of service on 10.04.2006, without intervention of any Court or Tribunal and continuously working as such on the date of commencement of the amendment made vide notification dated 27.02.2009, alone were entitled to be considered for regularization by the duly constituted Committee. The respondent was appointed in the year 1980, however, later on, his services were terminated in the year 1982. Though an award in his favour was passed on 09.06.2005, undisputedly he was reinstated only on 09.06.2006. Therefore, it is contended, the writ petitioner could not be said to have completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 because on that day, he was not even in service. As such, the legal position was not correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and impugned order has been passed, which warrants interference. Therefore, it is contended, the writ petitioner could not be said to have completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 because on that day, he was not even in service. As such, the legal position was not correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and impugned order has been passed, which warrants interference. The third and the last submission of learned State Counsel is that reinstatement was under a judicial order therefore, even if it is treated to be a case of deemed continuance in service, it is only on judicial intervention and not a case of continuance in service without there being a judicial order therefore, for that reason also, the claim of regularization by respondent was liable to be rejected. 2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, defending the order of learned Single Judge passed in his favour, would submit that the respondent was reinstated in service under a judicial order, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference particularly when many other persons similarly situated were not only continued but also regularized in service. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and also the pleadings and documents of respective parties. 4. Undisputedly the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed in the year 1980 but later on, he was retrenched from service on 26.05.1982. It is also not in dispute that on a reference being made, an award was passed by the Labour Court on 09.06.2005. It is not the case of the appellant that the award was successfully assailed in higher Court. Therefore, we have to proceed on this admitted factual position that the award was made in favour of the respondent. It is also not disputed that in execution of award the respondent was reinstated in service on 09.06.2006. 5. In the backdrop of aforesaid admitted factual position, it is required to be seen whether the respondent is qualified for being considered for regularization in terms of the provisions contained in Sub- Rule (4) of the Rules of 1999 as amended vide Amendment of 2009. 6. 5. In the backdrop of aforesaid admitted factual position, it is required to be seen whether the respondent is qualified for being considered for regularization in terms of the provisions contained in Sub- Rule (4) of the Rules of 1999 as amended vide Amendment of 2009. 6. In the case of Uma Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court though held that regularization of those who are illegally appointed through backdoor without following the prescribed procedure is impermissible in law, in Paras 53 and 54 of the said order, following observations were made to allow regularization of irregularly appointed persons against sanctioned posts, only as one time measure: - "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [ (1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071 ], R.N. Nanjundappa [ (1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799 ] and B.N. Nagarajan [ (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937 ] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. 54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.” 7. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the regularization would be permissible only as one time measure of those who have completed 10 years of service as on the date of the judgment of the Court. However, a caveat has also been added that for the purpose of counting 10 years continuous service, continuance on the strength of judicial order would not be counted. 8. The appellants in order to facilitate regularization as one time measure in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supeme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), amended the existing Rules of 1999 vide notification dated 27.02.2009 and sub-Rule (4) of Rule 6 upon amendment provided as under:- “(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the persons irregularly appointed on any duly sanctioned posts mentioned in column number 2 against serial number 4 of schedule and completed ten years service on 10-04-2006, without intervention of any court or tribunal, and continuously working as such on the date of commencement of these amendment rules, shall be screened by committee consisting of- (i) Principal Secretary/Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Secretary; (ii) Principal Secretary/Secretary to the Government, Finance Department or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Secretary; and (iii) Principal Secretary/Secretary to the Government, of the concerned department. 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 Appointing 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.” 9. 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 Appointing 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.” 9. The aforesaid rule allowed screening and regularization of the persons irregularly appointed on any duly sanctioned posts mentioned in column No.2 against serial No.4 of the Schedule and who have completed 10 years of service on 10.04.2006 without intervention of any Court or Tribunal and continuously working as such on the date of commencement of the amendment Rules. 10. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that in order to be eligible for being screened for the purposes of regularization, a candidate is required to be in service as on 10.04.2006 and he should have completed 10 years of service on that day. 11. The respondent though terminated from service in the year 1982, but under the award passed by a competent Labour Court, he was reinstated in service. His reinstatement was based on declaration given by the Labour Court that the retrenchment of the respondent was illegal. The legal consequence flowing from an order declaring retrenchment/termination as illegal, followed by reinstatement is that the person shall be deemed to have continued in service for all legal purposes irrespective of whether back wages have been granted to him or not. The effect of the judicial order declaring illegal an order of termination/retrenchment would render the termination void ab initio. The legal consequence would be that the person shall be deemed to be in service throughout. 12. If we apply the aforesaid principle, it is quite clear that for the purposes of application of Rules in the case of the respondent, he shall be deemed to have continued in service including on 10th April, 2006. Further, this would also logically lead to conclusion that he shall be deemed to have continued in service and completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. 13. The submission of learned State Counsel that since reinstatement of respondent was through judicial intervention, his case could not be considered for regularization, as the period could not be included for the purposes of counting 10 years of service, cannot be accepted. 13. The submission of learned State Counsel that since reinstatement of respondent was through judicial intervention, his case could not be considered for regularization, as the period could not be included for the purposes of counting 10 years of service, cannot be accepted. It is not a case where on the date of promulgation of the Rule, the respondent was continuing in service on the strength of any interim order. Present is a case where the termination order has been declared illegal and the respondent was reinstated in service. In such a case, the rigour of the observation that the period of service on judicial intervention shall not be counted, would have no application. 14. Therefore, the legal position, which emerges in the present case is that on the date, when the amendments were made in the Rules and the date on which the case of the respondent was considered for screening for the purposes of regularization, he shall be deemed to be in service. Not only that, he shall be deemed to have completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to be regularized in service subject to fulfillment of any other criteria prescribed for the purposes of regularization. 15. The ultimate conclusion, which has been drawn by the learned Single Judge, is in accord with the view which has been taken by us though for additional reasons assigned by us. 16. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.