JUDGMENT By the Court.—The respondent Nos. 5 to 30 (the contesting respondent) are daily wagers working with the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (the Nigam). They filed WP No. 40103 of 2002 for a direction to regularise their services and to pay them minimum pay scale as admissible to the regular employees. 2. The writ petition has been allowed by the single Judge on 1.8.2006 with a direction to the State Government to sanction the post for regularising them and to give them all allowances corresponding to the regular employees. Hence, the present special appeal by the Nigam. 3. The Division Bench of this Court while entertaining the special appeal has also granted an interim order on 29.8.2006 staying the operation of the judgment of the single Judge. Thereafter the appeal was admitted on 28.7.2010. Now the appeal has come for final hearing. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties. 5. The counsel for the Nigam states that: The State Government has already created posts by the GO dated 13.5.2011; The Nigam undertook the process for regularisation; The services of the contesting respondents were regularised on 21.5.2011 with effect from 13.5.2011, the date when the GO was issued. 6. These posts were created independent of the order passed by the single judge, and as such so far as the question of regularisation is concerned, the writ petition has become infructuous but the appeal survives so far as the other directions are concerned. 7. It is not disputed that the contesting respondents were daily wagers. The supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Tilak Raj case and others (2003) 6 SCC 123 after referring to the earlier decisions in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 77 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 210 and State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu, (2003) 1 SCC 250 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 65 held: ‘In a recent case, this Court in State of Orrissa v. Balaram Sahu speaking through one of us (Doraiswamy Rajy, J.) expressed the view that the principles laid down in the well considered decision of Jasmer Singh case indicated the correct position of law. It was noted that the entitlement of the workers concerned was to the extent of minimum wages prescribed for such workers. If it is more than what was being paid to them. It was noted that the entitlement of the workers concerned was to the extent of minimum wages prescribed for such workers. If it is more than what was being paid to them. A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no posts. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff of any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances.’ 8. Minimum Wages Act defines what is a minimum wage that is required to be paid. It is being revised from time to time. It is this minimum that worker has to be paid. In case this is paid then it cannot be said there is violation of Article 23 of the constitution. 9. In our opinion, a person is entitled to remuneration attached to his status or the statutory minimum applicable to him. However, in a suitable case, where principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is applicable, it could be more. 10. Another Division Bench of our Court in State of UP and another v. Rajendra Prasad and others, (2004) 1 UPLBEC 60; (Paragraphs 13 and 14) has also held the same. 11. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. The directions given by the single judge to pay salary to the daily wagers not less than the minimum of the pay scale set aside. The contesting respondent may be paid their wages. However it should not be less than minimum wage prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. . 12. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is partly allowed. —————