ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

“(1) That, the petitioner may be regularize on a class IV Post since 5.3.1993.

(2) That, the petitioner be paid full pay of a IV Class employee i.e Rs. 4,000-80-7,000 with back arrears of pay

(3) That any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court deem fit may also be awarded.”

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sweeper by order dated 5.3.1993 at the Collectorate rate. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not regularized and ultimately he has been granted benefit of Viniyamitikaran Scheme floated by the State in the year 2016 and has been declared as Sthaikarmi. It is submitted that by order dated 24.7.2017 (Annexure P/7), he has been granted pay scale of Rs. 4,000-80-7,000/-. However, the petitioner is being paid monthly salary of Rs. 5,680/- ie 4,000+1,680 whereas he should have been paid salary in accordance to the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-80-7,000/-. It is further submitted that in fact, the petitioner is entitled for regularization.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that so far as the prayer of regularization is concerned, it is not the case of the petitioner that his initial appointment was irregular or illegal. Even from the order of his initial appointment, it appears that the said appointment was made without inviting applications from the general public by issuing a general advertisement. Thus, it is clear that the initial appointment of the petitioner was illegal and in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the employees who had succeeded in getting back door entry in the government employment cannot be regularized as the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the illegality cannot be perpetuated in such a manner. So far as the question of payment of pay scale of Rs. 4,000-80-7,000/- is concerned, the counsel for the respondent by referring to the order dated 24.7.2017 (Annexure P/7) submitted that, it is specifically mentioned in the said order that the petitioner would be entitled for the pay-scale of Rs. 4,000-80-7,000/- and accordingly his salary was fixed at Rs. 4,000+1,840 =5,840/- as on 1.9.2016. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner is being paid the salary as per the scale admissible to the Sthaikarmi and therefore, this petition sans merits.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. So far as the prayer made by the petitioner for regularization of his service is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), has held as under :-

“45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularised or made permanent, the Courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain—not at arm’s length—since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the Court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the Court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary