JUDGMENT 1. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 9.10.1991 by which the learned Single Judge disposed of as many as 141 writ petitions filed before him. The learned Single Judge in the ultimate para ..of his order had given the following directions : 2. These writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the following manner : (1) Claim of the petitioners for quashing of the orders of termination of their services and for their reinstatement in service is rejected. (2) The respondents, should, however, pay to the petitioners salary for the entire period for which their appointments have subsisted. They shall also get one month's salary. This payment shall be made within a period of three months of submission of certified copy of this order; (3) The respondents should determine the vacancies in class IV service for the entire Medical & Health Department within a period of three months of the date of receipt of copy of this order and make regular appointments against these vacancies in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and other service Conditions) Rules, 1963. The respondents should take into account those vacancies against which casual or daily wage earners are working at present. Preference should be given in appointment to those candidates who were appointed as daily wagers or who were appointed on part time basis. Those candidates, who were appointed on daily wages or on part-time basis, should be treated as within age limit for the purpose of being appointed afresh on the basis of vacancies determined as per the Court's direction; (4) The Government should not make appointment on daily wage basis in future. However, if any contingency exists or arises in future for specified work of short duration, Government may engage part-time employee or enter into agreement for appointment on contract basis, with the emergent situations and such engagement/appointments shall not continue beyond a period of three months. (5) The Government should expedite the enquiry in the matter of alleged irregularities in the making of appointments and the recovery from defaulting officers/employees. (5) The Government should expedite the enquiry in the matter of alleged irregularities in the making of appointments and the recovery from defaulting officers/employees. (6) Parties are left to bear their own costs." It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the directions of the learned Single Judge are such which cannot be complied with because many of the persons who have been given appointments, on inquiry were found to be fictitious names, persons who are not in existence. He further contended that there are some posts which are part-time sanctioned posts and it is not possible to give appointments to them, but we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. So far as the direction No. 1 extracted above in the order of the learned Single Judge is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has nothing to say and has not raised any grievance. He has raised the grievance in respect of the directions No. 2, 3 & 4 which have been extracted above. 3. So far as the direction No. 2 extracted above in the order of the learned Single Judge is concerned, it will be seen from a bare reading that the learned Single Judge has directed that the petitioners before him should be paid salary for the entire period for which their appointments have subsisted, and they should also get one month's salary. In our opinion, one who has actually worked and whose appointment has been in subsistence, is entitled for the salary for the period he worked. Even in the case of temporary employees, their services can be terminated only after one month's notice and the learned Single Judge in the case of the petitioners before him directed that they will also be entitled to get one month's salary. We are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge is just and equitable and does not call for any interference. 4. We are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge is just and equitable and does not call for any interference. 4. If the State wants any clarification in respect of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge, that they were fictitious persons who are not in existence, the State can apply before the learned Single Judge praying clarification of the aforesaid direction showing the individual case and should explain the difficulty to comply with the direction of the learned single Judge and it will be for the learned single judge to issue any clarification or to modify the direction in respect of any of the petitioners who were before the learned single judge 5. Coming to the direction No. 3, which has been extracted above, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is not possible for the State to comply with the direction. We fail to understand the arguments of the learned counsel for the State. It will be seen from a perusal of the above extracted direction No. 3 of the learned Single Judge that the learned Single Judge has only directed that the vacancies in Class IV Service for the entire Medical & Health Department within a period of three months of the date of receipt of copy of this order should be determined and regular appointments against these vacancies in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963, should be made. The learned Single Judge has confined his order only to the sanctioned strength of the vacancies. As per the sanctioned strength, he has not said anything about making appointments in a regular manner against any part-time sanctioned posts. If the learned Single Judge directed that while making appointments under the aforesaid Rules preference shall be given to those candidates who were appointed on daily wages or were appointed on part-time basis and relaxation in age should be given for the purpose of being appointed afresh, we are of the opinion that that direction of the learned Single Judge is also most just and equitable. No doubt, by that direction the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, meant only such of the candidates who were appointed on daily wages, who were within the age limit in accordance with the Rules when they were appointed they were entitled for relaxation for the period they were in service as daily wagers or as part-time employees. If anybody at the time of appointment on daily wages or part-time basis was not within the prescribed age limit for appointment as a regular Class IV employee, no question of relaxation in age so far as that employee is concerned can arise and we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge to that extent. We may, however; clarify that usually various departments give artificial break in the service of the daily wagers and even part time employees, if any, artificial break of less than six months is given to any employee, shall be ignored and the said employee shall be considered to have been appointed for the whole period. 6. With the above clarification we do not find any case to interfere in the special appeal and the same is dismissed summarily If the State wants for extension of time specified by the learned Single Judge, it may approach the learned Single Judge for extension of the time. *******