JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising from a representative suit for a declaration that the order dated March 15, 1965 (Ex. A-3) depriving the employees of the Agriculture and Dairy farms of the Government Agricultural College, Kanpur of the benefit of a weekly rest day with effect from June 6, 1965 was ultra vires, illegal and invalid and that the plaintiff and the other employees like him of the said two farms of the said College were entitled to a day of rest every week. Besides the above declaration the plaintiff had also claimed damages amounting to Rs. 96/- for 48 days of weekly rest on which the plaintiff had worked at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day as also pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day for the day of rest every week until such time as the order was not rescinded. 2. The plaintiff was employed as a delivery man in the dairy farm of the Government Agricultural College at Kanpur. The suit was brought by him in a representative capacity on behalf of all such employees of the said College as belonged to the plaintiffs category in the Agriculture and Dairy farms. The plaintiff and certain other employees of his category were confirmed in their service by an order dated 2nd June, 1952. They were enjoying a day of rest every week from 1962 but the said benefit was withdrawn with effect from June 6, 1965 by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, hence the suit. These facts were not disputed. 3. The plaintiff contended that the privilege of a day of rest every week was a condition of service. The Government withdrew the said benefit suddenly end without any explanation or prior notice. On representation to the Labour Inspector, Kanpur, the plaintiff was informed that the practice of allowing the plaintiff and other employees of his category a day of rest every week was withdrawn in pursuance of a Government notification dated November 10. 1964 under S. 13 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the Act was a measure enacted for the benefit of the employees and did not authorise the Government to withdraw a privilege which was being enjoyed by them. 4. 1964 under S. 13 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the Act was a measure enacted for the benefit of the employees and did not authorise the Government to withdraw a privilege which was being enjoyed by them. 4. The defendant State pleaded that the plaintiff is a Class IV employee in the Agriculture and Dairy farms of the said College and such employees as the plaintiff did not enjoy the privilege of a day of rest every week ever since they joined service. The privilege was first given to them in view of a clarification of Rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Act in June 1962, but the said rule was amended by the notification dated November 10, 1964 with the result that the said privilege was withdrawn. It was not a condition of service nor part of the contract of employment. With regard to the claim for damages it was said that the plaintiff did not suffer any damages and was, therefore, entitled to none. It was further contended on behalf of the defendant State that Rule 23 of the U. P. Minimum Wages Rules, 1952 did not apply to the plaintiff, but barred the suit. 5. The trial court decreed the suit in respect of the declaration claimed but dismissed the claim for damages on the findings that the plaintiff is entitled to day of rest every week like all Government employees and in case the Act was applicable to him he was entitled to a day of rest every week under Rule 23 (6) of the Rules framed under the Act, and that the notification dated March 15, 1965 issued by the Labour Commissioner. Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur, discontinuing the weekly day of rest was illegal. As to the alleged bar to the maintainability of the suit it was held by the trial Court that S. 24 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts only in respect of a claim for recovery of wages. The trial court also held that the suit in a representative capacity was maintainable in respect of the relief for declaration and that the notice under S. 80 C. P. C. was valid. The trial court also held that the suit in a representative capacity was maintainable in respect of the relief for declaration and that the notice under S. 80 C. P. C. was valid. On appeal by the defendant State the Court of the Second Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur held that there was no rule or term of contract of service under which the plaintiff or his colleagues could claim a day of rest every week, nor were they entitled to the same under Rule 23 (6) of the Rules framed under the Act inasmuch as the clause (5) of Rule 23 as amended clearly provided that Rule 23 shall not apply to persons in agricultural employment. In the result the learned Civil and Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of declaration granted by the trial court. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant did not appear at the hearing of this second appeal. However. I perused the judgment of the two courts below and the record, and have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U. P. Rule 23 of the Minimum Wages Rules, 1952 before its amendment by the notification dated November 10, 1964 (Ex. A-2) reads as under: "23. Weekly Holidays: (1) unless otherwise permitted by Government no employee shall be required or allowed to work in a scheduled employment on the first day of the week (hereinafter referred to as the said day) except when he has had or will have a holiday for the whole day on one of the five days immediately before or after the said day for which he shall receive payment equal to his average daily wages during the preceding week: Provided that the weekly holiday may be substituted by another day: Provided further that no substitution shall be made which will result in any employee working for more than ten days continuously without a holiday for a whole day. (2) Where in accordance with the provision of sub-rule (i) any employee works on the said day and has had holiday on one of the five days immediately preceding if the said day shall for the purposes of calculating his weekly hours of work be included in the preceding week. Explanation: For the purposes of this rule "week" shall mean a period for seven days beginning at midnight on Saturday night." 7. Explanation: For the purposes of this rule "week" shall mean a period for seven days beginning at midnight on Saturday night." 7. By notification dated November 10, 1964 R. 23 was amended to read as follows: "23. Weekly day of rest - (1) Where an employee in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Act has worked in the scheduled employment under the same employer for a continuous period of not less than six days he shall subject to the provisions of this rule be allowed a day of rest every week (hereinafter referred to as rest day) which shall ordinarily be Sunday: Provided that the employer may fix any other day of the week as the rest for any employee or class of employees in that scheduled employment: Provided further that the employee shall be informed of the day fixed as the rest day and of any subsequent change in the rest day before the change is effected, by display of a notice to that effect in the place of employment at a place to be specified by the Inspector in this behalf. Explanation: For the purpose of computation of the continuous period of not less than six days specified in this sub-rule (a) any day on which any employee is required to attend for working but is given only an allowance for attendance and not provided with work, and (b) any day on which an employee is laid off on payment of compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shall be deemed to be days on which the employee has worked (2) Any such employee shall not be required or allowed to work in a scheduled employment on the rest day unless he has had or will have a substituted rest day for a whole day on one or the five days immediately before or after the rest day: Provided that no substitution shall be made which will result in the employee working for more than ten days, consecutively without a rest day for a whole day. (3) Where in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this rule, any employee works on a rest day and has been given a substituted rest day on any one of the five days before or after the rest day, the rest day shall for the purpose of calculating the weekly hours of work be included in the week in which the substituted rest day occurs, (4) An employee shall be granted for the rest days wages calculated at the rate applicable to the next preceding day and in case he works on the rest day and has been given a substituted rest day on which he worked at the overtime rate and wages for the substituted rest day at the rate applicable to the next preceding day: Provided that where the minimum daily rate of wages of the employee as notified under the Act has been worked out by dividing the minimum monthly rate of wages by twenty-six or where the actual daily rate of wages of the employee has been worked out by dividing the monthly rate of wages is not less than the notified minimum daily rate of wages of the employee no wages for the rest day shall be payable, and in case the employee works on the rest day and has been given a substituted rest day, he shall be paid only for the rest day on which he worked an amount equal to the wages payable to him at the overtime rate: Provided further that in the case of an employee governed by piece-rate scheme the wages for the rest day, or as the case may be, the rest day and the substituted rest day, shall be such -as the Government may from time to time prescribe, having regard to the minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act in respect of the scheduled employment. Explanation - In this sub-rule next preceding day means the last day on which the employee has worked, which precedes the rest day of the substituted rest day, as the case may be and where the substituted rest day falls on a day immediately after the rest day, the next preceding day means the last day on which the employee has worked, which precedes the rest day. (5) The provisions of this rule shall apply to the employees in scheduled employments other than agricultural employment. (5) The provisions of this rule shall apply to the employees in scheduled employments other than agricultural employment. (6) The provisions of this rule shall not operate to the prejudice of more favourable terms if any, to which an employee may be entitled under any other law or under the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, and in such a case, the employee shall be entitled only to the more favourable terms aforesaid. Explanation: For the purposes of this rule, `week shall mean a period of seven days beginning at midnight on Saturday night." 8. A perusal of Rule 23 shows that its object was to provide a full day of rest every week to every employee in a scheduled employment. There is a large list of scheduled employments in the Schedule to the Act. It is undisputed that class IV employees of the two farms were not allowed the benefit of a weekly day of rest until after the clarification made by the Government, which was communicated by the Directorate of Agriculture, U. P. vide its letter dated 13th June, 1960 (Ex. A-2) applying Rule 23 of the U. P. Minimum Wages Rules, 1952 to the inferior Government servants attached to the said farms. The benefit was withdrawn in consequence of Government order dated March 15, 1965 (Ex. A-3) whereby it was pointed out that clause (5) of R. 23 of the Minimum Wages Rules 1952 as amended by the notification dated November 10, 1964 made Rule 23 inapplicable to agricultural undertakings or establishments. It has been specifically pleaded by the defendant State in paragraph 14 of its written statement that the provisions of Rule 23 do not apply to the plaintiff and other employees attached to the agriculture and dairy farms of the Government Agriculture College, Kanpur. It is not clear from the record whether the nature of the plaintiffs employment can be termed as agricultural, such as to make the provisions of Rule 23 of the Minimum Wages Act as amended by the notification dated November 10, 1964 inapplicable to him and the other employees of his category in the Government Agricultural College, Kanpur. It is not clear from the record whether the nature of the plaintiffs employment can be termed as agricultural, such as to make the provisions of Rule 23 of the Minimum Wages Act as amended by the notification dated November 10, 1964 inapplicable to him and the other employees of his category in the Government Agricultural College, Kanpur. Nevertheless, it seems to have been assumed by all concerned that the employment in the agriculture and dairy farms of the said College was a scheduled employment such as to make the provisions of the Act and the Rules applicable to it. Part II of the Schedule to the Act reads as under: "Part II 1. Employment in agriculture, that is to say, in any form of farming, including the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairy farming, the production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodity, the raising of live-stock, bees or poultry, and any practice performed by a farmer or on a farm as incidental to or in conjunction with farm operations (including any forestry or timbering operations) and the preparation for market and delivery to storage or to market or to carriage for transportation to market of farm produce." 9. It cannot therefore be doubted that the plaintiff and his colleagues were engaged in a scheduled employment within the meaning of the Act and its provisions were applicable to them. Under S. 13 (1) of the Act the appropriate Government (in the present case the Government of Uttar Pradesh) has been empowered to fix the number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working day and to provide for a day of rest in every period of seven days and to provide for payment of work on a day of rest at a rate not less than the over time rate. Therefore, it follows that by R. 23 of the U. P. Minimum Wages Rules, 1952 the Government of Uttar Pradesh could have fixed the number of hours of workings and to provide for a day of rest in every period of seven days to employees of the category to which the plaintiff belongs, and further to provide for payment to them for work on a day of rest at a rate not less than the over time rate. It cannot also be disputed that in doing so the Government was not bound to make identical provisions in respect of all schedule employments, and could exclude one or more of the schedule employments therefrom. Agricultural employment has been specified in Part II of the Schedule to the Act. This has been placed in a distinct category by itself. It cannot, therefore, be said that while finding the hours of work and making provision for a weekly day of rest in respect of employments specified in the Schedule to the Act, the Government of Uttar Pradesh could not have reasonably left out agricultural employment which forms a distinct and separate category of scheduled employments. The amendment of Rule 23 of the U. P. Minimum Wages Rules, 1952 by the notification dated November 10, 1964 excluding agricultural employment from its purview cannot, therefore, be regarded to be ultra vires, illegal or invalid on that score. The benefit of Rule 23 of the U. P. Minimum Wages Rules, 1952 was, therefore, not available to the plaintiff or the other employees in his category of the agricultural and dairy farms of the Government Agricultural College, Kanpur. 10. The only question which therefore remains is whether the plaintiff and his colleagues were entitled to a weekly day of rest on account of their being employees of the Government. It is undisputed that they did not enjoy any such benefit until after the Government chose to apply R. 23 to them by the so called clarification (Ex. A-2). Even if Rule 23 as it existed before its amendment by the notification dated November 10, 1964, could be regarded to be a condition of service of the plaintiff and his colleagues, it could certainly be amended by the Government acting unilaterally. Once the rule was amended such as to make it inapplicable to agricultural employment, the plaintiff could no longer avail of its benefit. 11. The learned Civil and Sessions Judge has on this question observed that the trial court wrongly proceeded on the assumption that every Government servant was entitled to a weekly day of rest. Once the rule was amended such as to make it inapplicable to agricultural employment, the plaintiff could no longer avail of its benefit. 11. The learned Civil and Sessions Judge has on this question observed that the trial court wrongly proceeded on the assumption that every Government servant was entitled to a weekly day of rest. Reference was made in this connection by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge to Paragraph 442 of the Manual of Government Order and the observations of the learned Munsif to the effect that it was not disputed before him by the learned District Government Counsel that the plaintiff like any other Government employee was entitled to a weekly day of rest. With regard to Para 442 of the Manual of Government Orders the learned Civil and Sessions Judge has observed that it provides "that the holidays sanctioned may be availed of by all Government servants employed in the office closed" and, therefore, it has to be firstly Established that the holidays have been sanctioned, and secondly it had to be "proved that the plaintiff was employed in any office". Now one can take judicial notice of the fact that every Government office in India is closed on Sundays. It is only in the case of industrial establishments and factories employing a continuous process that they are open on all days of the week but the staff working on such continuous process is given a weekly day of rest in accordance with the provisions of the Factories Act. With regard to establishments like the Government Agriculture College one can take judicial notice of the fact that the College is closed on Sundays and its offices must also be [closed on Sundays. With regard to Agricultural and Dairy operations, it cannot, however, be disputed that there must the some staff to perform the same even on days when the offices of the College for the farms are closed. Obviously, the plaintiff and employees of his category belong to that kind of staff. However, it would be draconian to proceed on the basis that in the absence of a statutory rule or a specific term of contract of service the Government could take work from the members of such staff on all the seven days of the week and 52 weeks of the year. However, it would be draconian to proceed on the basis that in the absence of a statutory rule or a specific term of contract of service the Government could take work from the members of such staff on all the seven days of the week and 52 weeks of the year. It may be that before 1962 they were not allowed a day of rest once every week, but having given them the benefit of a day of rest every week by applying Rule 23 of the U. P. Minimum Wages Rules, 1952 the Government could not have later on withdrawn [that benefit only because the rule was amended so as to make it inapplicable to agricultural employment. Agricultural employment was a scheduled employment even before 1962, and the U. P. Minimum Wages Rules, 1952 applied to the employees of the agricultural and dairy farms of the Government Agriculture College, Kanpur, but were not given the benefit of that rule simply because they were Government employees and Government was all powerful. It follows that the benefit of a weekly day of rest to the plaintiff and other employees of his category was given not merely because of R. 23 of the U. P. Minimum Wages Rules 1952 but also because the Government chose to give them the benefit. It could not have, therefore, been withdrawn simply because the rule was amended so as to make it inapplicable to agricultural employment. 12. It is unjust and shocking to ones conscience that the plaintiff and other; employees of his category were deprived of the benefit of a weekly day of rest by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Since the grant of that benefit is not prohibited by law and was being allowed to them from 1962 onwards until it was withdrawn by the Government, this Court has the jurisdiction to decide the matter in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience. 13. I, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Second Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur and restore that of the Munsif. Hawaii, Kanpur in this case with costs throughout.