B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) IN W. P. No. 23128/95 and batch, I directed regularization of services of the petitioners w. e. f. 1-1-2001 with all consequential benefits. But, on appeal, a Division Bench of this Court though setting aside my order, categorically observed that the amendment is only prospective and the rights crystallized under the orders of this Court as well as the Apex Court cannot be disturbed. Admittedly, all these petitioners have completed five years of service prior to the amendment. But, at the same time, the division Bench while setting aside my finding with regard to the cadre strength, they neither laid any guidelines with regard to the regularization of the services of the temporary employees who are working for decades in an organization where no cadre strength is prescribed at all nor referred to the observations made by the Hon ble supreme Court in State 0f Haryana v. Piara singh and Agricultural University v. Rathod labhu Bechar. ( 2 ) BE that as it may, on an appeal theirlordships of the Supreme Court gave notice to the Government why they should not direct the regularization of the services of those employees who completed five years of service before the Amendment Act 27 of 1998 and directed maintenance of status quo. With regard to the continuance of services of the employees. As the petitioners are in service, the respondent-Corporation cannot terminate the services of the petitioners. ( 3 ) THE next question that falls forconsideration is whether the action of the respondent-Corporation in paying only a consolidated amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of their appointment is permissible in law. To my mind, this action of the respondent-Corporation is in violation of provisions of Payment of minimum Wages Act whereunder a duty is cast upon the employer to pay the wages fixed by the Government from time to time. As per the notification issued by the government, the petitioners are entitled to wages @ Rs. 90/- (Rs. Ninety only) per day including holidays. Even if the petitioners are treated as daily wage workers to which position the benign Government, in a welfare State, has thrown the graduates and post-graduates, they cannot escape the liability of paying the minimum wages to the petitioners as long as they are in service and the issue is finally thrashed out in the supreme Court. Even if the petitioners are treated as daily wage workers to which position the benign Government, in a welfare State, has thrown the graduates and post-graduates, they cannot escape the liability of paying the minimum wages to the petitioners as long as they are in service and the issue is finally thrashed out in the supreme Court. ( 4 ) HENCE, I direct the respondent-Corporation to pay the wages to the petitioners @ Rs. 90/- per day including holidays which may work out around rs. 2,700/- (Rs. Twenty seven hundred only) per month. They shall forthwith implement the order of this Court. """ ( 5 ) ). The Counsel for the respondent-Corporation contended that this contempt case is not maintainable in law as the order of this Court has been merged in the order of the Division Bench. This submission is made by the Counsel forgetting the fact that judgment of the Division Bench is now under appeal and the Hon ble Supreme court directed maintenance of status quo. Even as per the Judgment the Division bench though the word set aside is used/ to mind the Division Bench upheld the view taken by this Court that the amendment is only prospective but not retrospective and the rights crystallized under the Judgment of this Court as well as the Apex Court cannot be affected by the amendment and in fact directed the Corporation to regularize the services of the Writ Petitioners as per the terms of G. O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22-4-1994. But the Division Bench order is silent whether the temporary employees who have put in more than ten years of service have to be thrown out of employment on the ground that there is no clear vacancy where there is no cadre strength at all as is the case in this Corporation wherein from Managing director to the down are working on ad hoc basis. ( 6 ) NOW, the issue of the regularization ofthe services of the employees who completed five years of service as on the date of amendment is pending before the hon ble Supreme Court and with regard to the termination of their services pursuant to the Judgment of the Division Bench, the supreme Court directed maintenance of status quo, in other words, their services cannot be terminated. ( 7 ) THIS order I am passing with regard tothe other violations committed by the corporation in not paying even minimum wages, leave apart, the living wages and brought the lives of these employees to that of animal existence which is in violation of article 21 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) WITH the above directions, thecontempt case is allowed.