Per Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, J:

1. The present special appeal (writ) arising out of order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5896/2017 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner challenging the order dated 15.06.2015 was rejected as under:-

"6. Bare perusal of notification dated 27.02.2009, under which the petitioner is claiming the benefits of regularization would reveal that in compliance of the aforesaid judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, State of Karnataka(supra), one time scheme was framed, which lays down that only those candidates who had completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006 would be considered for granting benefit of regularization, admittedly, petitioner did not complete 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006.

7. In view of above, where the action taken by the respondents is strictly in accordance with notification dated 27.02.2009, no interference is called for in the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. "

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-writ petitioner was initially appointed as a driver by the respondent w.e.f 26.06.1997. His services were terminated on 18.08.2000 against which appeal was filed before Labour Court No.2, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ' Labour Court'). Vide order dated 17.09.2009 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition) Labour Court proceeded to allow the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner and was reinstated in service with continuity on the post of driver. Respondent-Department(s) assailed the aforesaid award by filing a writ petition before this Court which came to be dismissed on 27.07.2011, pursuant to which the appellant-writ petitioner rejoined service on 17.10.2012. Post re-instatement, the appellant-writ petitioner was not granted the regular pay scale and was not considered for regularization of his service. Thereupon, he preferred a S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9758/2013 seeking inter alia ground of regular pay scale and other consequential benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure-2 of the writ petition) directing the appellant-writ petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the respondents who were in turn directed to consider and decide the same by a speaking order including the aspect of regularization.

3. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the appellant-writ petitioner submitted his representation which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 15.06.2015 (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) primarily on the ground that appellant-writ petitioner was a daily wager and had not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006, the cutoff date pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and further that, no sanctioned post of driver was vacant at the relevant time.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.06.2015, the appellant-writ petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5896/2017 before this Court and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.04.2025 dismissed the writ petition by holding inter alia that the writ petitioner was not entitled to regularization, in view of the cut-off date of 10.04.2006 as held in Uma Devi(supra) as one time scheme.

5. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 28.04.2025, the appellant-writ petitioner has preferred this instant special appeal raising various grounds including, that by the time of the impugned order, he had rendered more than 28 years of continuous service from the date of his initial appointment. Further, it is stated that the post of driver was available when his case was considered by the Screening Committee in 2015. The alleged application of the cut-off date, 10.04.2006 creates discrimination between similarly placed employees and is contrary to the spirit of Uma Devi(supra) case, as clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in