ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. Instant writ petition has been preferred with following prayer:- It is, therefore, prayed that this writ Petition may kindly be allowed and relevant record may kindly be called for and be perused, if this Hon'ble Tribunal so pleases and; I) By way of issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the Respondent No.2, may kindly be held to be arbitrary and discriminatory and may kindly be directed to be modify to the extent of granting benefit of regularization to the petitioner on the post of LDC w.e.f. the date on which his Juniors/similarly situated persons have been regularized i.e. from 19.3.1993. II) By way of issue an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to make pay fixation of the petitioner in the regular pay scale of L.D.C. w.e.f. 19.3.1993 i.e. the date of regularization of his juniors and to further grant benefit of fixation in Revised Pay Scales Rules framed by the Respondent Government from time to time. He may also be granted benefit of Selection Scales on completion of 9,18 and 27 years of service as well as benefit of seniority and promotion on the dates on which his juniors have been granted such benefits. Arrears of different of pay and other benefits may kindly be directed to be paid to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12%per annum. (iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed this writ petition, aggrieved by the action of the respondent(s), whereby the respondent(s) have given the benefit of regularization on the post of LDC from 01.8.2012. He further submitted that identically placed persons were regularized from an earlier date, i.e., 31.03.1993. He further placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Dharam Singh and Ors. Vs. State of UP and Anr. , order dated 19.08.2025; 2025 INSC 998 and Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors. : 2024 INSC 1034 . 3. He further submitted that identically placed persons were regularized from an earlier date, i.e., 31.03.1993. He further placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Dharam Singh and Ors. Vs. State of UP and Anr. , order dated 19.08.2025; 2025 INSC 998 and Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors. : 2024 INSC 1034 . 3. The aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s) on the ground that when the order dated 31.03.1993 was passed in respect of other employees, they were given an opportunity to appear in the efficiency test and, after clearing the efficiency test, their services were regularized. He, however, admitted the fact that on the date of the efficiency test, i.e., 24.01.1993, the petitioner was out of service, as his services were terminated, before said test. He also placed reliance upon the judgment in cases of The Managing Director, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer, and Anr. versus Chiggan Lal & others S.B. Civil Appeal No.(s) 1875/2022 and submitted that it is the prerogative of the employer to regularize any employee and no employee can claim parity in the matter of regularization. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. The short controversy in the instant writ petition is only with regard to the date of regularization, as the services of petitioner has already been regularized on the post of LDC with effect from 01.08.2012 vide order dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-5). The facts of the case clearly indicate that the services of the present petitioner were terminated on 15.10.1985 and the petitioner has raised a dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and pursuant to the reference, an award dated 30.09.1994 was passed in favor of the petitioner, whereby the Labor Court, Jaipur had declared the termination order dated 15.10.1985 as unfair and illegal and further found petitioner to be entitled for continuation along with all consequential benefits. 6. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by the State and the same was dismissed, and further the order was assailed before the Division Bench and the same was also dismissed. The State has availed the option to file a review petition and after dismissal of the review petition decided, to close litigation, and ultimately, vide order dated 28.01.2009, the petitioner was reinstated as a daily wager. 7. The State has availed the option to file a review petition and after dismissal of the review petition decided, to close litigation, and ultimately, vide order dated 28.01.2009, the petitioner was reinstated as a daily wager. 7. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5666/2009 praying for regularization, and a direction was issued to the respondent(s) to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. Pursuant to the order dated 01.08.2012 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5666/2009, the petitioner submitted a representation whereby the petitioner claimed that six junior persons to him were appointed on30.11.1988 and they were absorbed by the department. 8. Considering the order dated 01.08.2012 in the writ petition, and the representation, the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 19.11.2013, but was appointed afresh with effect from 01.8.2012 on a probation for a period of two years. 9. The material on record clearly indicates that on 31.03.1993, the respondent-department has passed an order whereby the services of 49 daily wager persons were regularized after they qualified the efficiency test organized on 24.01.1993. The language of this letter is reproduced as under. dk;kZy; funs'kd] jkT; chek ,oa izk- fu- foHkkx jkt-] t;iqjA Øekad ,Q ¼,½ 32@laLFkk@chek@93@1952 fnukad 31- 3-93 dk;kZy; vkns'k bl foHkkx ds fuEufyf[kr nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh tks fd U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ls dfu"B fyfid in ij dk;Zjr Fks] budks dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx ¼dkfeZd&d&11½ dh vf/klwpuk Øekad ,Q-3¼56½ dkfeZd@d&2@84@fnukad 12-10-92 ,oa foRr foHkkx dh Lohd`fr fnukad 4-12-92 esa fn, x;s funsZ'kksa ds vUrxZr foHkkxk/;{k }kjk fnukad 24-1-93 dks vk;ksftr dk;Zn{krk ijh{kk mRrh.kZ fd, tkus ds QyLo:i mUgsa rqjUr izHkko ls dfu"B fyfid ds in ij fu;fer :i ls fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA buds inLFkkiu buds uke ds lEeq[k vafdr ftyk dk;kZy; esa fd;k tkrk gSA budk inLFkkiu 2235 ¼105½ chek vkgfjr fd;k tkosA uksV% tks deZpkjh 15-4-93 rd bl vkns'k dh ikyuk esa dk;Zxzg.k ugha djsxsa budks nSfud osru Hkksxh ij dh x;h fu;qfDr fn- 16-4-93 esa fujLr ekuh tkosxhA ,lMh@& funs'kdjkT; chek ,oa izk- fu- foHkkx] jkt- t;iqjA Aforementioned clearly indicate that on the basis of an efficiency test organized on 24.01.1993, 49 daily wagers were accommodated by the department and the petitioner was not on roll on the date of organization of the efficiency test, therefore, there was no opportunity for the petitioner to appear in the efficiency test. 10. 10. The award dated 30.09.1994 in LCR No. 294/1987 clearly indicate that the order of termination was found to be unfair and illegal and the petitioner was declared as an employee. The declaration of 'employee' denotes that the order dated15.10.1985 was never passed. Thereafter, the petitioner was forced by the department to wait till his reinstatement on28.01.2009, despite award in his favor. 11. Again, the petitioner approached this Court for regularization in light of the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , wherein a Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the governments to devise a mechanism for regularization of such individuals who have completed service of 10 years. It means that if the petitioner was on roll on the date of holding of the efficiency test or on the date of consideration for regularization of similarly placed individuals, then the case of the petitioner would have been considered for regularization, in identical manner. 12. It appears that the respondents, annoyed by the litigation, has chosen a date for regularization only after the order dated 01.08.2012 in Writ Petition No. 5666/2009, and the same is sufficient to draw a conclusion that the respondents, instead of considering the case of the petitioner in parity with other individuals, deliberately discriminated the petitioner. Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the record that the respondents deliberately fixed a date, i.e., 01.08.2012, for regularization when the Single Bench order was passed in favor of the petitioner for consideration of regularization. 13. In the case of Managing Director, The Managing Director, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer, and Anr. versus Chiggan Lal & others (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered certain facts wherein unskilled laborers were employed on the date fixed i.e on 06.04.1982 to 17.05.1980. The Supreme Court after considering the legal position has observed as under:- 9. It is the settled position that the date from which regularization is to be granted is a matter to be decided by the employer keeping in view a number of factors like the nature of the work, number of posts lying vacant, the financial condition of the employer, the additional financial burden caused, the suitability of the workmen for the job, the manner and reason for which the initial appointments were made etc. The said decision will depend upon the facts of each year and no parity can be claimed based on regularization made in respect of the earlier years. 10. This Court in Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. V. Nanu Ram and Others (2006) 12 SCC 494 , has held that the employer is required to examine the question as to how many workmen could be regularized keeping in mind, the budget provisions, availability of the posts, the number of muster roll workers engaged in construction work without their being existence of any vacant sanctioned posts and the manner in which these muster roll workers were initially recruited i.e. whether with or without the approval of the management, thereafter examining the above, the employer has to recommend their absorption in regular service on the basis of eligibility as determined by the Screening Committee. It was held that mere completion of two years is not the only criterion and that the State is not under an obligation to constitute Screening Committee at the end of each year. Constitution of the Screening Committee is within the discretion of the State Government dependent upon the aforesaid factors. Applying the above principles, it was held in that case that: “9. …Even in the award dated 31-5-1978 read with award dated 15-6-1979 the fixation in the regular pay scale was only for those employees who were recruited with the approval of the management and in accordance with law. Even under the awards, as they then stood, the Screening Committee had to examine the performance of the workmen before granting them the regular pay scale. Granting of pay scale simpliciter is different from grant of permanency. While granting permanency, the State has to consider the number of posts falling vacant, those posts should exist as and by way of regular vacancy, the financial burden of granting permanency and, therefore, in our view, the High Court has failed to keep in mind the difference between the concept of grant of pay scale as distinct from grant of permanency. The State was not under an obligation to constitute Screening Committee at the end of each year. Constitution of the Screening Committee was within the discretion of the State Government dependent upon the above factors. Therefore, there was no question of comparing the case of the present respondents with the case of the workmen who got regularised prior to 31-3-1982. The State was not under an obligation to constitute Screening Committee at the end of each year. Constitution of the Screening Committee was within the discretion of the State Government dependent upon the above factors. Therefore, there was no question of comparing the case of the present respondents with the case of the workmen who got regularised prior to 31-3-1982. Each exercise by the Screening Committee has to be seen in the light of the above factors. In a given exercise, the State may have sufficient number of vacant posts to accommodate certain number of workers. However, that may not be the case in the subsequent years. Therefore, there is no question of any discrimination in the matter of regularization or in the matter of grant of permanency.” 14. The Supreme Court has clearly laid down that regularization depends upon major factors like the nature of work, the number of posts lying vacant, the financial condition of the employer, the additional financial burden caused, the suitability of the workmen for the job, the manner and reason for which the initial appointments were made, etc. It was further held that no parity can be claimed based on regularization made in respect of earlier years. 15. The distinction drawn in paragraph 9 clearly indicate that this judgment is not applicable in support of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent(s), as herein it is a case of discrimination and also a case where, due to the high-handedness of the respondent(s), the services of petitioner were regularized with effect from 01.08.2012, which itself indicate that the respondent(s) have perceived the litigation to challenge their authority. This indicate that the respondents, instead of considering the case of the petitioner in parity with similarly or identically placed persons, have chosen an arbitrary date for regularization, and the action of arbitrariness is itself void and illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. 16. Having taken note of the principles as laid down in the cases of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, Dharam Singh and Ors. Vs. State of UP (supra) and Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) it is appropriate to allow the writ petition and direct the respondent(s) to reconsider the date of regularization of the present petitioner to the same date on which identically placed persons or his junior persons were regularized. Vs. State of UP (supra) and Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) it is appropriate to allow the writ petition and direct the respondent(s) to reconsider the date of regularization of the present petitioner to the same date on which identically placed persons or his junior persons were regularized. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits, and the respondents are directed to complete the exercise within 90 days. 17. Hence, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1563/2015 along with pending application(s) stands disposed of.