Judgment 1. This appeal arises from a writ petition, filed by respondents 1 to 31, mainly demanding a time scale of pay as admissible to the employees at CAPART headquarters at New Delhi, instead of a consolidated monthly sum. 2. Respondents 2 to 31 are individual employees of Consultancy-cum-Guid-ance Centre, Bania in the district of Vaishali which, according to them, is a unit/wing being sponsored by the Council for Advancement of Peoples Action & Rural Technology (CAPART). The respondents-writ petitioners were appointed in a regular way, fully following the norms of selection and appointment, on different posts around the year 1985. Their appointments were made on consolidated monthly amounts. It appears that after working for about a decade, there was dissatisfaction among the employees with regard to their emoluments and other conditions of service. It further appears that the employer too was not unconscious of the unsatisfactory and ad hoc arrangements with regard to the fixation of salary of the employees of the unit which is apparent from the internal correspondences between the unit at Vaishali and CAPART at New Delhi. It also appears that the officers at the local unit were pressing hard upon the CAPART to take a decision with regard to the pay structure and other incidental matters. But before a final decision could be taken, the respondents-writ petitioners came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 780 of 1993 seeking its intervention. A learned Single Judge upheld the demand of the writ petitioners-respondents and by judgment and order dated 26.6.1997 gave the following directions: Para 5: "In this view of the matter, this Court directs that the respondent authority must give the petitioners the. benefit of minimum regular pay scale given to the employees who are discharging similar functions in Central Government. Such benefits may be made available to the petitioners with effect from the month of January, 1993 when the petitioners have approached this Court. Benefit of such regular pay scale be made available to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order by this Court and the arrears of difference pay to the petitioners to which they will be entitled on introduction of regular pay scale, be made available to them within three months thereafter." 3. Benefit of such regular pay scale be made available to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order by this Court and the arrears of difference pay to the petitioners to which they will be entitled on introduction of regular pay scale, be made available to them within three months thereafter." 3. During the pendency of this appeal, the writ petitioners-respondents, with the express liberty of the Bench in seisin of the appeal, moved a petition before the learned Single Judge for certain modification in the order (against which the appeal was filed). On that petition, the learned Single Judge modified the order and directed that the appellate authority must give to the writ petitioners-respondents the benefit of minimum regular pay scale given to the employees who were discharging similar functions at CAPART instead of the Central Government as directed in the order previously. 4. The matter rests at that stage. 5. The appeal was filed in the year 1997 and it has remained pending for all these nine years. From the order sheet of the appeal, it appears that at the time of its filing the concerned employees (the writ petitioners-respondents) were getting Rs. 700/- and 3500/- as monthly consolidated salary and the Bench in seisin of the matter expressed the opinion that the amount being paid to the employees appeared to be very low. On 1.10.1997 the Bench made an interim order, staying the operation of the order of the writ Court subject to the condition that none of the petitioners-respondents would receive less than a sum of Rs. 1926/- per month which was payable to people employed in the lowest rank. The Court also recorded that the appellant had agreed that increments would be allowed from time to time. 6. It is noted above that at the time this matter came before the Court in the year 1993, it was engaging the attention of the concerned authorities at CAPART and they were obliged to take a decision on it. But the action of the employees in coming to Court appears to have given them the excuse to abdicate their responsibilities and to do nothing in the matter, leaving it entirely to the Court. That is quite unfortunate. But the action of the employees in coming to Court appears to have given them the excuse to abdicate their responsibilities and to do nothing in the matter, leaving it entirely to the Court. That is quite unfortunate. The dispute between the parties is of a nature in which a decision must first be taken by the concerned authorities, the employers and that has been delayed for a decade and a half due to the pending litigation. 7. The admited position is that even today the concerned employees are paid their wages as a consolidated monthly sum. The payment of consolidated amount as monthly wages is anachronistic in the 21st Century and the Court is surprised that such practice is being followed even today. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it desirable that in the first place, the appellants should be directed to frame a proper and suitable pay structure for the concerned employees alongwith other relevant rules regarding heir service condition. We, accordingly, direct the Director General, CAPART, New Delhi to prepare proper and suitable pay scales for the concerned employees as also the relevant rules governing their service condition, such as age of retirement, terminal dues etc. The proposed pay scales and the draft rules governing the service conditions of the employees should be framed within six weeks and submitted before this Court on supplementary affidavit. 9. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate for the appellant. 10. Put up this case after six weeks.