We have heard the learned counsel on both sides in regard to the merits of the appeal. 2. The simple case of the respondents in the writ petition is that they are part-time lecturers teaching Commercial and Industrial Law in MBB College, BB Evening College, Govt Degree College, Khowai, as such for quite some time. Their further case is that they have been performed the duties of Lecturers in the Govt Aided College and are. therefore, entitled to the full salary as have been given to others. For the purpose of putting forward their case, they have placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar & others vs. State of Punjab & others, reported in AIR 1994 SC 265 . This petition was opposed by the appellants, respondents in the writ petition, i.e., the Government. It is very unfortunate that the Govt Advocate who argued the matter did not choose to file a counter by way of statement of objections to controvert the averments made in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by five petitioners who are the respondents herein. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, placing reliance upon the Vijay Kumar's case (supra), allowed the writ petition and held as follows : "So far as the pay and allowances of the petitioners are concerned the same should be determined on the basis of the principle 'equal pay for equal work' as laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Vijay Kumar & others, vs. State of Punjab & others, reported in AIR 1994 SC 265 , as admittedly, the UGC has not prescribed any scale for the part time lecturers. This should be done within a period of 6 (six) weeks. In case, the pay and allowances of the petitioners are not determined on the basis of the principle 'equal pay for equal work' the petitioners will be at liberty to approach this Court. In view of the interim order similarly situated persons may not be left out. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly." It is this order which is called in question by the State Govt in this writ appeal. 9. In view of the interim order similarly situated persons may not be left out. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly." It is this order which is called in question by the State Govt in this writ appeal. 9. We have perused the grounds of appeal, the facts and circumstances of the case and judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar's case (supra). 10. By a careful consideration of the judgment, it is seen that their Lordships applied Article 39 (d) refering to equal pay for equal work in relation to part time lecturers. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, their Lordships held that the provisions of Article 39 (d) dealing with equal pay for equal work should be applied in case of Govt servant who are not gainfully employed elsewhere. It is further held that the persons working for more hours every day as compared to regularly appointed lecturers, such persons are entitled to pay according to the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the post, the duties of which they are discharging during the period their employment as part time lecturers subsists. 11. In the light of the foregoing, it is clear that at the outset, the respondents herein and the petitioners in the writ petition, were undoubtedly practising lawyers inasmuch as one of the conditions required for their appointment as Lecturer in Law college is that such lawyers should have put in not less than seven years' practice in the Bar which goes to show that they are regularly practising professional lawyers. The question, therefore, is whether in dealing with part time lecturers of this kind, the provisions of Article 39 (d) could be applied. 12. In Vijay Kumar's case (supra), the main prayer was that the State Govt may take action to absorb their services and to regularise their services as Lecturers in the College. In the instant case, that is not so; because, it is unthinkable that the practising lawyers, who have been working as part time lecturers, to seek for absorption of their services as full time lecturers or professors in which event, they must put an end to their practice in the Bar. In the instant case, that is not so; because, it is unthinkable that the practising lawyers, who have been working as part time lecturers, to seek for absorption of their services as full time lecturers or professors in which event, they must put an end to their practice in the Bar. Secondly, in Vijay Kumar's case (supra), their Lordships dealing with the counter affidavit filed, it was stated that the appellants therein working as part time lecturers are bound by the conditions of their appointment and that they are not entitled to claim anything beyond the conditions of such appointment. Such a condition is not found in the instant case. It is stated that such persons, on the basis of such conditions, would not be entitled to claim the minimum of the pay scale of the post of Lecturer since the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, if we carefully consider the facts and circumstances and the real question involved in the Vijay Kumar's case (supra), it becomes clear that the ratio of decision in that case cannot be applied to the facts of this case, because, at the outset, it is nobody's case that the writ petitioners want their services to be absorbed in the Govt service. Thirdly, it is not their case that the Minimum Wages Act is applicable to them. On the other hand, if applied, they will receive much less than what they are receiving now. 13. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge did not apply his mind in applying the principles laid in Vijay Kumar's case (supra) to the facts of the case under appeal. 14. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the order made by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside which accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.