[2025:RJ-JP:14914] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4707/2002 Ghan Shyam, S/o Shri Mahaveer, aged about 58 years, R/o Guru Nanak Colony, District Bundi, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Manager, Circuit House, Bundi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 02/04/2025 1. The present petition is filed with a prayer seeking direction to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner and petitioner be paid as per the principle of equal pay and equal work. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wage worker in Circuit House, Bundi ever since 01.01.1986 and worked there till 31.05.1987 however, after the said date the petitioner was not permitted to work with the said department. It is further submitted that being aggrieved of the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner has approached the Industrial Dispute Labour Court, Kota. Furthermore, it is submitted that learned labour Court vide award dated 30.12.1996 held that the petitioner was retrenched by the respondents sans complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and had noted categorical [2025:RJ-JP:14914] (2 of 3) [CW-4707/2002] directions that petitioner be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 3. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated, however, respondents vide notice dated 26.04.2001 terminated the service of the petitioner. Assailing the said notice the petitioner has approached the High Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2390/2001 titled as Ghanshaym Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. wherein vide judgment dated 14.09.2001, the said notice was quashed. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has filed various applications before the respondents requesting regular pay scale, however, the said representation/application of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents, therefore, the present petition is filed. 4. Lastly, it is submitted that an interim protection was granted vide order dated 01.08.2002, wherein, it was directed to the respondents to not terminate petitioner from services during the pendency of the petition. Learned counsel has fairly conceded the fact that the petitioner has superannuated on 03.07.2023. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has raised objections to the above contentions leveled by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner does not qualify to be regularized for the reason that there was no sanctioned seat/post for the post in question and petitioner was appointed/reinstated due to the intervention of the Court. In support of the same reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. reported in 2006 INSC 216, wherein it is held that there is no fundamental right with those [2025:RJ-JP:14914] (3 of 3) [CW-4707/2002] who are employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in services and the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as 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 courts or of tribunals. 6. It is further submitted that daily wages were paid to the petitioner for work done by him till his superannuation. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner was paid retrenchment compensation, one months’ notice pays, and wages from 01.07.2002 to 22.07.2002. 7. Lastly, it is submitted that in absence of similar situated persons, as no junior person/ similar situated person as that of petitioner were regularized, the claim qua equal pay or regularization does not sustain. 8. Heard and considered. 9. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, upon perusal of the material available on record, taking note of the fact that the petitioner as on date is superannuated, plea qua equal pay/regularization does not sustain as there are no similarly situated persons as that of petitioner, this Court deems it apposite to dismiss the present petition. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in above terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand dispose of. (SAMEER JAIN),J Chandan/7