JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4th April, 2002 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1215/2002. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Paricharak (Class IV Employee) on 8th August, 1991 by the District Ayurved Officer, Chittorgarh. He was posted in Ayurved Hospital, Kapasan. He joined his duties on 14th Aug., 1991. On 7th October, 1992, the appellant was removed from service by the order of second respondent. Aggrieved by the order of removal the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5577/1992. In that petition, an application for interim relief was filed by the appellant. On 23rd Oct., 1992 the learned Single Judge of this Court directed reinstatement of the appellant by means of an interim order. Pursuant to the interim order, the appellant was reinstated in service. The interim order continued till the time of disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed by learned Single Judge on 13th of July, 2000. The effective direction given in the writ petition is as follows: "The respondent shall be at liberty to examine in light of the past record the case of the petitioner for his continuation and regularisation in accordance with law. The reasons for which the service was terminated by the impugned order can also be considered now. 3. It appears that direction of the learned Single Judge made in the aforesaid writ petition was not complied with. Therefore, the appellant filed a fresh writ petition being writ petition No. 1215 of 2002 for implementation of the order dated 13th July, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. On 4th April.2002 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition the learned Single Judge observed that it was for the respondents to examine the question of regularisation of the appellant in the light of the past record including the reasons for which the services were terminated by order dated 7th Oct., 1992. The appellant not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge filed the instant appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge filed the instant appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In so far as the question of regularisation is concerned, there was a direction of the learned Singly Judge in Writ Petition No. 5577/1992 for considering the case of the appellant in the light of the past record. This direction was not complied with. The learned Single Judge ought to have given a direction to the respondents to comply with the order. Since that direction was not given by the learned Single Judge we consider it appropriate to give direction to the respondents to comply with the direction passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5577/92 within a period of four weeks, failing which the appellant shall be deemed to have been regularised w.e.f. the date of filing of the writ petition. We are told that the appellant is being paid a sum of Rs. 32/- per day by the respondents. The respondents are not paying even minimum wages to the appellant. This is a clear transgression of the provisions of the payment of Minimum Wages Act. 5. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant has been working since 1992 on ad hoc basis, we consider it appropriate to direct that the appellant shall be paid minimum pay of the scale for the post in question w.e.f. the date of institution of the present writ petition. It goes without saying that the appellant would a entitled to minimum wages as prevalent from time to time for the period i to filing of the writ petition. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is disposed f. It will however be open for the parties to make an appropriate application in case of any difficulty.Appeal Dismissed of as Above. *******