Order : (DINESH MEHTA, J.) 1. The order dated 04.09.2019, whereby the respondent no.2 – Registrar of the Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’) had cancelled the petitioner’s engagement as Ex-cadre employee under the Daily Wages Employees Welfare Scheme Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1990’ or ‘the Scheme of 1990’) is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition, which has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts in nut-shell as pleaded in the petition are, that the petitioner had been working with the respondent – University as Electrician since 1993. Meanwhile, in order to give effect to Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shreekant Modak, the respondent – University introduced above referred Scheme and provided that all the casual workers working with the respondent – University will be given status of Ex-cadre and will be paid fix pay as provided under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1990. 3. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after being considered by the Grievance Redressal Committee, the respondent no.3 by order dated 02.12.2015 conferred ‘Ex-cadre employee’ status to the petitioner under the Rules of 1990 and fixed his pay at Rs.6050/- per month apart from Dearness Allowances, House Rent Allowances etc., while treating his initial date of appointment/engagement as year 1993. 4. Learned counsel contended that pursuant to a complaint qua such status granted to the petitioner, the respondent – University issued a show cause notice dated 19.07.2019 asking him as to why the status of ‘Ex-cadre employee’ given to him vide order dated 02.12.2015 be not withdrawn. 5. In response to the notice aforesaid, the petitioner filed a reply dated 22.07.2019 before the inquiry committee, which sent a report. And acting upon the said report furnished by the inquiry committee, by way of impugned order dated 04.09.2019 the respondent – University withdrew the status of ‘Ex-cadre employee’ granted to the petitioner. 6. 5. In response to the notice aforesaid, the petitioner filed a reply dated 22.07.2019 before the inquiry committee, which sent a report. And acting upon the said report furnished by the inquiry committee, by way of impugned order dated 04.09.2019 the respondent – University withdrew the status of ‘Ex-cadre employee’ granted to the petitioner. 6. Inviting Court’s attention towards various certificates which have been placed on record (Annexures-1 to 14), learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had indisputably served the respondent – University as an Electrician and considering the facts and material available on record so also the fact that the petitioner had worked for more than ten years, the respondent- University had granted the status of Ex-cadre to the petitioner. He argued that the status of ‘Ex-cadre’, which was given to the petitioner after due consideration of the factual matrix has been arbitrarily withdrawn by the respondents, that too without considering the material available on record. 7. After reading the order impugned dated 04.09.2019 in its entirety, Mr. Vyas argued that the inquiry committee was swayed by the fact that the petitioner had got a private firm (Priya Electrical and General Suppliers) owned by him, registered with the respondent – University in the year 2013. While pointing out that the same was later on cancelled on 14.11.2014, he emphasized that even if the petitioner’s error of getting his firm registered with the respondent – University is taken to be a fact against him, the respondent – University was required to exclude such period and consider his case, as he had worked with the respondent – University for more than ten years. 8. While questioning the legality and propriety of the office order dated 06.09.2019, learned counsel argued that withdrawing the petitioner’s ‘Ex-cadre’ status is not only arbitrary but also contrary to law, inasmuch as the office order dated 06.09.2019 refers to Rule 24(2) of the Rules of 1990, whereas no pay in lieu of one month’s notice was issued to the petitioner. 9. While raising a grievance that the entire exercise has been conducted at the behest of a complainant, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has reached an age, where he cannot get any other employment and prayed that a sympathetic view be adopted. 9. While raising a grievance that the entire exercise has been conducted at the behest of a complainant, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has reached an age, where he cannot get any other employment and prayed that a sympathetic view be adopted. He implored that the order impugned be quashed, particularly because the petitioner has been working at the strength of interim order dated 17.09.2019 passed by this Court. 10. Mr. Punia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent – University submitted that the petitioner had not worked as a seasonal workman and highlighted that there is no post/work of Electrician in work places of the respondent – University. He invited Court’s attention towards the Rules of 1990 and argued that as per Rule 2(d), only those persons who had worked in Agricultural Farm; Animal Farm and Poultry Farm etc., as seasonal workers on daily wage basis or monthly payment basis were covered under the Rules of 1990. 11. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner had worked as an Electrician that too through a contractor and the certificates, which he had produced are of little avail, inasmuch as they do not establish that the petitioner had worked as a Daily Wager or on fixed monthly honorarium, as a seasonal worker. It was argued by Mr. Punia that the Rules of 1990 were framed to cover all those seasonal workers, who have discharged duties of agriculturists and labourers etc. in the farms maintained by the respondent – University and not to cover the persons like the petitioner, who had discharged ancillary duties such as Electrician, that too through a contractor. 12. Having said so, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the inquiry committee has considered each and every aspect of the matter and recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner had not worked as a seasonal labourer. He argued that in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not enter into fact finding exercise. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. Before dealing with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court would like to reproduce certain provisions of the Rules of 1990, which reads thus:- 15. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. Before dealing with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court would like to reproduce certain provisions of the Rules of 1990, which reads thus:- 15. A simple look at the above quoted provisions of the Rules of 1990 shows that employees or workmen covered under the Rules of 1990 are those daily wagers/casual workers, who have worked on seasonal basis in the agricultural farms, animal husbandry farms and poultry farms of the respondent – University. 16. The petitioner has relied upon the documents Annexures-1 to 14, but all of them show the petitioner to have worked as an Electrician. Furthermore, the documents filed by the respondent – University establish that the petitioner had worked through a contractor or as a contractor and that there was no direct empoloyer-employee relationship between the respondent – University and the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination can the petitioner claim that he had worked as a daily wager or casual workman. 17. So far as the order impugned is concerned, the same was passed after observing principles of natural justice. A detailed notice was issued to the petitioner and a response was elicited. The order under consideration (dated 04.09.2019) is based on consideration of inquiry report and exhibits due application of mind. 18. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents did not give him a month’s salary in lieu of notice, as required under Rule 24(2) of the Rules of 1990 is untenable, because withdrawal of petitioner’s ‘Ex-cadre’ status is by dint of the order dated 04.09.2019; the same has not been passed in exercise of provisions contained in Rule 24(1) of the Rules of 1990. Reference of Rule 24(2) of the Rules of 1990 in the communication dated 06.09.2019 (Annexure-27) is therefore, insignificant and inconsequential. 19. Rule 24 of the Rules of 1990 is applicable only in those cases, where for the reasons other than the withdrawal of the order granting ‘Ex-cadre’ status, the employer feels that the ‘Ex- cadre’ status given to a workman is required to be cancelled owing to some reason, including that the services are not required. Neither the notice initially issued to the petitioner nor does the order dated 04.09.2019 make a reference of Rule 24(1) of the Rules of 1990. Neither the notice initially issued to the petitioner nor does the order dated 04.09.2019 make a reference of Rule 24(1) of the Rules of 1990. Hence, reference of the provision of Rule 24(2) does not render the proceedings illegal, as has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 20. The discussion foregoing clearly shows that the petitioner has no case worth interference. There is no merit or force in the writ petition, for which it is, hereby, dismissed. 21. Stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.