1. Petitioner has been rendering services as `Safaiwala right from the year 1983 on temporary basis, initially used to be paid Rs. 50/- per month. Now stated to be paid Rs. 300/- seeks writ of mandamus to command respondents to regularize her services and to release the full grade and scale attached to the post of Class-IV employee and to give her benefit and pay, on equal pay for equal work basis or in alternative be paid minimum wages as permissible under rules. 2. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is contended that the petitioner was not appointed but was engaged as a Safaiwala as the department required her services on contract basis for about an hour daily in morning for sweeping, as to clean the school premises and was being paid remuneration out of the local fund/contingency fund of the school. There was no post of sweeper against which she could be appointed. It is further added that there are about 7000/- employees working in different schools on part time basis, not adjusted against any substantive post, as their services are not required for full time. Heard. Considered. 3. The initial order of engagement in favour of the petitioner is reproduced hereunder: "As desired by the Director School Education vide his endt. No: nil dt: 21.12.1983 and as recommended by the TEO Sonawari vide her No. 1313 dt: 20.12.1983 Mst. Raja Bano D/o Mohd. Shaban Rather R/o Asham Sonawari is appointed as Sweeper on temporary basis at Rs. 50/- P. M. by debit to office expenses, in Govt. Girls Middle Schools. She is posted in Girls Ms. Sumbal." Sd/- District Education Officer Baramulla. 4. Subsequent order of transfer is also reproduced hereunder: "In order to provide the facilities of a peon to Girls Middle School Asham Mtr. Raja Banoo Addl. Sweeper GMS Nesbal is hereby transferred and adjusted in Girls Middle School Asham. The head Mistress GMS Nesbal will relieve her at once without any delay." Sd/- Tehsil Education Officer Sonwari. 5. The above referred orders would reveal that the petitioner had been appointed as Sweeper on temporary basis. It is not qualified in the order that she is engaged as a part time Sweeper and to render service for an hour daily in the morning for sweeping the school premises. 5. The above referred orders would reveal that the petitioner had been appointed as Sweeper on temporary basis. It is not qualified in the order that she is engaged as a part time Sweeper and to render service for an hour daily in the morning for sweeping the school premises. The contention of the appearing counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was engaged as part time Sweeper to work for a hour daily, is not only repelled by the two orders referred to hereinabove but also by the Certificate issued by the Head Master Girls Middle School Asham, which he has recorded on the back of the application marked to him by the ZEO Sumbal Sonwari. The report/remarks of the Head Master reads as under:- "Submitted in original to Z.E.O. Sumbal Sonwari, with the remarks. That the Sweeper named overlead fischarges her duties honestly in this School. She performs her duty from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m." Sd/- Headmaster Govt. Girls Middle School Asham. 6. The question of petitioner having been engaged as part time is belied by the records. The two orders as well as the remarks of the Head Master above referred have remained to be conroverted. 7. The position about non availability of post of Sweeper is admitted, when the post of Sweeper is not available, neither has been created, then the question of appointing the petitioner against the post of Sweeper and release the full grade and scale attached to the Class-IV post is beyond imagination cannot be granted. 8. Now the important question which emerge for consideration is as to whether the petitioner after having rendered services in the capacity of a Sweeper for last about 25 years can continue to be paid a minimum amount of Rs. 300/-, has to be answered in the bakdrop of the right guaranteed under the Constitution itself. In this connection it shall quite relevant to refer as to what has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, in the case captioned Zona Bibi v. State 2001 SLJ page 352: Needless to say the right to life as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as to live with dignity and honour and not mere living. The appropriate Government may examine this aspect of the matter and consider for framing appropriate scheme or any formula so that they can survive by affording at least two coarse meals a day. Till such time the scheme or an formula is framed by the appropriate Govt. the case of the appellant may be considered to be paid at the rate of Minimum Wages Act applicable in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This direction is, however, subject to the condition that the engagement is full time and not part time. We are also of the view that till the Govt. formulate a scheme or any other formula, such contingent engagement subject to the quantum of work may be made for the full job so that they can get the daily wages at the rate of Minimum Wages Act framed for the purpose." 9. The apprehension of the counsel for the respondents that there are seven thousand workers working in the capacity of part time Sweeper, may also claim the benefit, if any granted to the petitioner, is to be taken care of by observing that every case has its own facts and features. Instant case in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual background has to be dealt with on its own facts. 10. The petitioner after rendering services for a pretty long time cannot be denied at least the minimum wages payable and permissible, otherwise it shall be travesty of justice and total dishonour to the rights guaranteed under the constitution to ask the petitioner to continue to render her services on a paltry sum of Rs. 300/-. 11. Summing up until creation of post of Safiawala or formulation of suitable scheme there of by the Government, the petitioner is entitled to be paid the minimum wages i.e. shall be paid daily wages @ minimum wages permissible under the Minimum Wages Act. It is to be made clear that the case of the petitioner shall not be cited as precedent in other cases, unless those are similarly situated. Petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith the CMP(s).