1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to give him salary in the regular pay scale and also to give him benefits of leave, bonus, HRA, medical facilities and other allowances and to regularise his service on the post of Driver.

2. Facts, in brief, of the case are that the petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Caste and holds a driving licence effective from 03.05.1978 was orally appointed as Driver in the year 1980 on the daily wages of Rs. 11/- and his wages were thereafter enhanced. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has successfully undergone training of Fire Brigade under the Fire Brigade Officer, Municipal Board, Kota. At the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner had completed fourteen years of service and was being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 650/- p.m. whereas according to the Minimum Wages Act the petitioner being a skilled worker, were Rs. 724.50. It is also stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has rendered more than fourteen years of service with the respondents but still he has not been made regular and been provided benefit of the pay scale. He is being paid wages less than the minimum wages which is nothing but Begar under Article 23 of the Constitution of India and is also exploitation.

3. Respondent No. 3 Municipal Board was filed reply to the writ petition and has not controverted the aforesaid fact except that at present there is no vacant sanctioned post of Driver with the respondent No. 3 against which the petitioner could be regularised.

4. On 7.11.2006, two weeks time was granted to the counsel for respondent No. 3 to apprise this Court whether there are more than one vehicles in the Municipal Board, Bundi and further whether the petitioner is continuously working as driver. On the next date, no one appeared on behalf of the Municipal Board, Bundi. Then on 23.1.2007, again a detailed order was passed and last opportunity was granted to respondent No. 3 to file additional affidavit of the above effect, failing which adverse inference shall be drawn.

5. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the very fact of continuation of the petitioner as Driver and payment of wages of the post of Driver clearly reveals that there are more than one posts of Driver and against the second post, case of the petitioner can be regularised. To verify the aforesaid submission, directions were issued on 7.11.2006, 5.1.2007 and 23.1.2007 but no additional affidavit was filed. Therefore, the Court is left with no other alternative except to draw adverse inference as already ordered on January 23, 2007 that there are more than one vehicles and more than one posts of Driver exists against which claim of the petitioner could be considered. Counsel further submits that person junior to the petitioner have been regularised.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on para 53 of the Constitutional bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others 2006 (4) SCC 1 according to which where appointment is not irregular and duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts have been appointed and further employees are continuing to work for ten years or more, without intervention of the orders of the Court or the Tribunal, the question of regularisation of services of such employees may have to be considered on merit in the light of principles settled by the Court in the case as also the above mentioned case.

7. Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has not disputed the fact of continuation of the petitioner as Driver since 1980 but again repeated the same thing that there is no vacant sanctioned post of Driver and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to regularisation even as per Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) supra.

8. On raising the query that when an employee is continuing in service since last 27 years and salary is being paid to him regularly, is it possible even wit