Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 96 (GUJ)

MANJULABEN PUNJALAL DABHI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2011-02-14

S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2011
JUDGMENT S. R. BRAHMBHATT, J. Rule. Ms. Thakkar, learned A.G.P. waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith. 2. The applicant-original petitioner in main matter being Special Civil Application No. 30973 of 2007 is constrained to take out this application with following prayers: "(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the wages as notified by the Government of Gujarat under Notification No. VDR-E/14/2009-2011 dated 11-2-2009 and be further pleased to direct the respondent to pay the arrears arising out of the less payment of wages along with interest thereon; (B) That Your Lordships be further pleased to declare and hold the impugned letter dated 23/25th August, 2010, as illegal and contrary to the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Government of Gujarat; (C) Any other and such further relief as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice;" 3. The facts in brief leading to filing this application deserve to be set out as under in order to appreciate the agony and grievances voiced by the applicant in this Civil Application. 4. The applicant, who is petitioner in main matter being Special Civil Application No. 30973 of 2007 had to file the aforesaid Special Civil Application seeking appropriate writ or direction to the respondents for regularizing the service of petitioner in light of the Government Resolution dated 1-5-2007. The petitioner's case was that petitioner was appointed as Water Woman vide order dated 23-5-1983 and she joined the services on 25-5-1983. She received consolidated salary of Rs. 225/-, which came to be revised later on to Rs. 285/- per month. The petitioner was required to discharge duty for six hours a day i.e. from 10-00 a.m. onwards. She was appointed on temporary basis and the post was known as 'Part-time water-bearer'. The petitioner was visited with show-cause notice on account of alleged misconduct, and ultimately, her services came to be terminated with effect from 13-3-1987. The petitioner was constrained to approach the Labour Court and Labour Court granted reinstatement vide order dated 23-4-2001. The respondent challenged the same by preferring Special Civil Application No. 5964 of 2002, which came to be partly allowed by this Court vide order dated 31-8-2005. The petitioner was thus, reinstated in service by respondent on 22-2-2006 on a revise fix pay of Rs. The respondent challenged the same by preferring Special Civil Application No. 5964 of 2002, which came to be partly allowed by this Court vide order dated 31-8-2005. The petitioner was thus, reinstated in service by respondent on 22-2-2006 on a revise fix pay of Rs. 1350/- per month and was reinstated purely on temporary basis as 'Part-time water-bearer' for six hours from morning 10 O'clock. 5. The Labour Court had in its order granted reinstatement while setting aside the termination order. Therefore, petitioner's services were to be treated as continuous service, and accordingly, the consequential benefits were required to be accorded to her based thereupon. It is at this stage pertinent to note that, in Special Civil Application No. 5964 of 2002 filed by the respondent challenging the order of the Labour Court, wherein, this Court had modified the award by granting back wages but rest of the directions issued by the Labour Court like granting of continuity of service were not disturbed by this Court. 6. At this stage, in order to complete the chronological events, it is required to be noted that prior to her filing present substantive petition being Special Civil Application No. 30973 of 2007, the petitioner had to file one more petition being Special Civil Application No. 21309 of 2007 as even after her reinstatement, her services were once again terminated. The termination order was dated 20-7-2007 on the ground that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of Government Resolution dated 5-1-2007 item No. 1/1. As per item No. 1/1 of said Government Resolution, the employee is required to complete 10 years service continuously and if it is not satisfied, then, as per Government Resolution dated 10-2-2006, service of such part-time employee is to be terminated, as it is mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 1-5-2007 in item No. 3/3. As per item No. 1/1 of said Government Resolution, the employee is required to complete 10 years service continuously and if it is not satisfied, then, as per Government Resolution dated 10-2-2006, service of such part-time employee is to be terminated, as it is mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 1-5-2007 in item No. 3/3. In that petition being Special Civil Application No. 21309 of 2007, this Court (Coram: H. K. Rathod, J.) had passed detailed order on 1-11-2007 narrating in detail the chronological events and observing in Para 14 of that order that the respondents were, therefore, under obligation to consider the petitioner as continuous in service from 1983 to the date of initial appointment of the petitioner, non-consideration of the entire period from 1987 till the date of reinstatement amounted to violating the directions issued by the Labour Court and depriving the petitioner of her rights accruing therefrom. The action of respondent authority was declared to be arbitrary, unjust and unfair and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18 of said order dated 1-11-2007 in Special Civil Application No. 21309 of 2007 reads as under : "16. It is directed to respondent-Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Sachivalya, Gandhinagar and also directed to the Director of Medical Health Services, E.S.I. Scheme, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad to reinstate petitioner in service immediately on or before 6-11-2007 and also to pay salary as part-time employee from the date of termination i.e. on 24-7 -2007 till the date of actual reinstatement on or before 6-11-2007, failing which this Court will take serious view in this matter. 17. If the aforesaid direction is not complied by respondent as directed by this Court, then Secretary of Health and Family Welfare Department, Sachivalya, Gandhinagar must have to personally remain present before this Court, otherwise this Court will take serious action against concern authority. 18. Accordingly, this matter is adjourned on 20-11-2007. Direct Service is permitted." 7. Thereafter, as per the direction of the Court, the petitioner came to be reinstated on 5-11-2007. Hence, said petition being Special Civil Application No. 21309 of 2007 came to be disposed of by this Court (Coram : H. K. Rathod, J.). While disposing that petition, the Court made following observation in Paragraphs 6 and 7 on 23-11-2007, which reads as under: "6. Learned Advocate Mr. Hence, said petition being Special Civil Application No. 21309 of 2007 came to be disposed of by this Court (Coram : H. K. Rathod, J.). While disposing that petition, the Court made following observation in Paragraphs 6 and 7 on 23-11-2007, which reads as under: "6. Learned Advocate Mr. Mishra submitted that detailed order has been passed by this Court on 1-11-2007 wherein this Court has observed about regularisation of petitioner in service on the basis of the award passed by the Labour Court granting the continuity of service in favour of petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that permission may be given to the petitioner to file independent petition for regularisation on the basis of the award passed by the Labour Court and continuity of service granted by the Labour Court. 7. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Mishra, it is open for the petitioner to file independent petition claiming the benefit of regularisation on the basis of the G.R. dated 1-5-2007 and other decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court." Meaning thereby, liberty was reserved to petitioner to file substantive petition claiming the benefit of regularisation on the basis of the G. R. dated 1-5-2007 and other decisions of the Hon'ble Court. 8. Thus, in view of that liberty reserved by the Court to file substantive petition for seeking benefits of regularisation, the petitioner has filed main matter being Special Civil Application No. 30973 of 2007. 9. During the pendency of Special Civil Application No. 30973 of 2007, the applicant-petitioner had taken out one application being Civil Application No. 3714 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 30973 of 2007, wherein, this Court (Coram: H. K. Rathod, 1.) on 16-4-2010 passed the following direction : "Para 4 : In view of this, it is directed to the respondent to pay minimum wages as fixed by the State Government for the post and work carried out by the present applicant and also difference of minimum wages from the date on which she is working within a period of one month from the date of receiving copy of the present order. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of. Direct Service is permitted." 10. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of. Direct Service is permitted." 10. As submitted by learned A.G.P., the aforesaid direction was with regard to paying minimum wages as fixed by the State Government and based on work carried out by present applicant and also difference of minimum wages from the date on which she is working within a period of one month from the date of receiving copy of the order and as the petitioner was in fact given wages fixed by the State as per the G.R. dated 23-91998, she could not have made any other grievance thereafter. 11. It is pertinent to note here that present Civil Application is taken out as the wages of Rs. 1,350/- which the applicant is receiving as she worked upto six hours, is not the wages equivalent to the wages admissible under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The main matter is admitted and is awaiting its final disposal. 12. In the main matter also i.e. in Special Civil Application No. 30973 of 2007, this Court (Coram: H. K. Rathod, J.) on 28-12-2007, while issuing notice, in Paragraph Nos. 5, 6 and 7 observed as under : “5. Now, this petition is filed by petitioner with a prayer to regularise her service as per Government Resolution dated 1st May, 2007 by considering the total length of service from the date of joining. 6. In light of the aforesaid background, issue notice to the respondents returnable on 31st January, 2008. 7. Meanwhile, it is directed to respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularisation as per Government Resolution dated 1st May, 2007 while keeping in mind the observations made by this Court on 1st November, 2007 as referred above." 13. Thereafter, on 15-5-2008, this Court (Coram: H. K. Rathod, J.) passed the following order : "Learned A.G.P. Mr. Dwivedi for respondent No.1 submitted that matter of regularisation of the petitioner is pending before the Finance Department. However, this Court has passed a detailed order on 28-12-2007, but probably, this order has no effect upon the Government. But, apart from that, she is working for more than 10 years with the respondents. The Labour Court has granted continuity of service. This Court has mentioned all the details in order dated 28-12-2007. However, this Court has passed a detailed order on 28-12-2007, but probably, this order has no effect upon the Government. But, apart from that, she is working for more than 10 years with the respondents. The Labour Court has granted continuity of service. This Court has mentioned all the details in order dated 28-12-2007. Therefore, till the question of regularisation is examined by the Finance Department, it is directed to the respondents to pay regular salary to the petitioner for the Class-IV till the decision is taken by respondent-Department to regularize the service of petitioner or not, subject to further order that may be passed by this Court and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of respondents. Accordingly, matter is adjourned to 20-6-2008. Direct Service is permitted." 14. Thereafter, this Court (Coram: K. M. Thaker, J.) after adverting to the facts and submissions of the Counsels issued Rule, which was made returnable on 27-8-2008. Thereafter, the authorities have addressed a communication to the Advocate for the applicant on 23/25-8-2010, quashment of which is prayed in the Civil Application, informing him that as the State has fixed the remuneration to be paid to the part-time employees performing duties for six hours vide G.R. dated 23-9-1998, she is being paid Rs. 1,350/-. The Notification dated 11-2-2009 is not applicable to the part-time employee working in Class-IV in Government, and hence, the request is turned down. 15. Shri Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant has approached this Court by this Civil Application for receiving minimum wages during the pendency of main petition for regularisation, in other words, the petitioner-applicant is not seeking placement of herself in regular scale which is otherwise admissible to the regular employee that in the fitness of things and for meeting ends of justice should be justified even if she has prayed for an another scale or minimum scale, but the present Civil Application is confined to accord her minimum wages which are classified as minimum wages required to be paid to workman for sustaining herself and her family. 16. Shri Mishra has, therefore, submitted that without appreciating this aspect, the respondents have taken adamant stand in adhering to the provisions of G.R. dated 23-9-1998, which is not in any case, appropriate and therefore, the said stand deserves to be deprecated and appropriate directions are required to be passed. 17. 16. Shri Mishra has, therefore, submitted that without appreciating this aspect, the respondents have taken adamant stand in adhering to the provisions of G.R. dated 23-9-1998, which is not in any case, appropriate and therefore, the said stand deserves to be deprecated and appropriate directions are required to be passed. 17. Shri Mishra learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that Notification dated 11-2-2009 is notification issued by the State of Gujarat, through its Labour and Employment Department, which provides for payment of 50% of minimum rate of wages plus special allowance, if the part-time employee worked upto 4 hours, he is entitled to be paid full minimum wages plus special allowance. The said Resolution is made applicable to the part-time employee working in the dispensary and consulting room of doctor, then there is no earthly reason not to make it applicable to the employees like present applicant working in the establishment of Director of Medical Services, E.S.I. Scheme. In the alternative, Shri Mishra submitted that in case, if such Notification is held to be not applicable to the present applicant, on account of she being not employed in the establishments prescribed thereunder, then also, she ought to have been given benefits of fix wages as directed by this Court in case of Public Interest Litigation, which came to be filed being Special Civil Application No. 2492 of 2009 and the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Chief Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya and Akil Kureshi, J.) passed an order on 26-8-2010, wherein in Para 3, it is observed that State Government in its different establishment engaged employees. Instead of daily wage engagement they go for fixed pay engagement, and on completion of certain years, they are taken in the regular establishment and appointed in the regular scale of pay fixed, as per the recommendations of the Pay Commission. Relying upon this order, Shri Mishra submitted that this Court (Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi, J.) passed an order on 20-10-2010 in Civil Application No. 11445 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 17106 of 2007 for appropriate direction for paying the petitioner appropriate wages. The Court relying upon the Division Bench's order dated 26-8-2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2492 of 2009, issued direction to the respondents in that petition to pay the petitioner therein the wages at the rate of Rs. The Court relying upon the Division Bench's order dated 26-8-2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2492 of 2009, issued direction to the respondents in that petition to pay the petitioner therein the wages at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month right from the month of October, 2010 onwards. 18. Shri Mishra, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that either the applicant be considered for payment of wages as fixed in the Notification dated 11-2-2009 or be paid Rs. 3,500/- fixed wages as directed by this Court in other matter. 19. Learned A.G.P. Ms. Thakkar for the respondent contended that the petitioner-applicant hereinabove, has not sought any relief with regard to quashing of the Notification, wherein, State Government has fixed the wages of part-time employee engaged by the State and its establishment, namely G.R. dated 23-9-1998. In view of non-challenge to this Resolution couple with the fact that petitioner-applicant had in fact moved this Court on earlier occasion, by filing Civil Application for direction being Civil Application No. 3714 of 2010 and having invited the order of this Court (Coram : H. K. Rathod, J.) in Para 4 when this Court also ordered that she be paid minimum wages as fixed by the State Government on the post and work carried out by the present-applicant, the applicant is not entitled to receive anything more than what is fixed by the State as ordered by the Court. In that view of the matter, she is not entitled to take out any more application for seeking further benefits as the petitioner was not restrained from praying appropriately in the very said application. One more factor required to be noted at this stage that Notification dated 11-2-2009 do not mention any post of part-time water-bearer and looking to Notification, it can well be said that the applicant is not entitled to receive benefits of said Notification. 20. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, learned A.G.P. for the respondent contended that the notification and portion read over by learned Advocate for the applicant, on the face of it would, go to show that same has no applicability whatsoever for the employees of State and part-time employees engaged in the office of Director of Medical Services, E.S.I. Scheme. 21. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, learned A.G.P. for the respondent contended that the notification and portion read over by learned Advocate for the applicant, on the face of it would, go to show that same has no applicability whatsoever for the employees of State and part-time employees engaged in the office of Director of Medical Services, E.S.I. Scheme. 21. Learned A. G. P. submitted that non-applicability of said notification has been el3borately explained in two affidavits filed by the respondent, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to receive any benefits thereunder. 22. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench in Special Civil Application No. 2492 of 2009 is in respect to those employees, who have been originally engaged on fixed wages and they were given time and again benefits of wages revised as directed by the Pay Commission. They are receiving fix wages at the minimum scale as recommended by the Pay Commission. Thus, the order of the Division Bench was in respect of those employees, who are forming different class altogether, which cannot be equated with present applicant and on that basis, she could not have claimed parity for being given wages at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- p.m. 23. Learned A.G.P. further submitted that order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Application for directions being No. 11445 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 17106 of 2007, is also of no avail to the applicant inasmuch as the applicant though is also similarly situated part-time employee and governed by the Resolution dated 23-9-1998, but the authorities have already decided to prefer Letters Patent Appeal challenging said order on the ground that the said order could not have been passed on the basis of the order passed by the Division Bench in Special Civil Application No. 2492 of 2009. 24. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the various orders pressed into service by the applicant as well as respondent. 25. The question arises as to whether a State, who is responsible for enforcing and implementing the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, be permitted to flout it with impunity so far as its own establishments are concerned. 25. The question arises as to whether a State, who is responsible for enforcing and implementing the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, be permitted to flout it with impunity so far as its own establishments are concerned. In other words, can the State be permitted to discriminate against its own employees and deprive them of the benefits of proper wages, which could be called the eligible wages, which is to be paid which is equivalent to minimum wages prescribed under the provisions of the Act. The narration of facts of present case go to show that the authorities have been oblivious of their statutory obligation and constitutional duty qua citizens and their own employees. In the instant case, this Court is unable to accept the submission of learned A. G. P. for respondent that the applicant did not have any right to take out this application in view of order made by this Court (Coram : H. K. Rathod, J.) in Civil Application No. 3714 of 2002 and order dated 16-4-2010, as even in that application, though the minimum wage fixed by the State is mentioned but that in itself cannot be said to be an act or a decision on dispute between the parties, so as to work as res judicata in taking out the present application. Non-receiving of the adequate wages by the employee is evident on record. The wages of Rs. 1,350/- for part-time employee, who has been working for 6 hours, as fixed by the State in its G. R. dated 23-9-1998 cannot be called appropriate wages by any stretch of imagination, as State itself has issued notification, wherein, categories of employees working as part-time employees are covered, though the nature of work is not mentioned nor is the post referred by its exact nomenclature, but the fact remains to be noted that as per the scheme of the Act and as per the considered opinion of the State itself, if an employee, who has been discharging his duty as part-time employee in dispensary of doctor or in a consulting room of doctor is entitled to receive full minimum wages plus allowance, then, State is not justified in paying Rs. 1,350/- to its own part-time employees, who have put in 6 hours or more than 6 hours a day like present petitioner-applicant. 26. 1,350/- to its own part-time employees, who have put in 6 hours or more than 6 hours a day like present petitioner-applicant. 26. The two affidavits have been filed and State Government is a party in this proceeding, there is no denial to the fact of exercise of revising wages, which have been prescribed in that Government Resolution of 1998. 27. It is not even the case of the State that emoluments and wages of Rs. 1,350/- received by the applicant is in any way equivalent to the minimum wages as prescribed by their own notification. Thus, part-time employees covered by the Notification and working in the dispensary of doctor and consulting room of the doctor working more than four hours are eligible to get full minimum wages with allowance as prescribed under the Notification, would in its own strength be applicable to the part-time employee of the State and its establishments. Unfortunately, time and again, as could be seen from hereinabove, the Finance Department is consulted but the voice of the petitioner even sometime, routed through Court orders, have fallen on deaf ears. The applicant's main prayer is that she is not given the wages, which even as per the State authorities are the prescribed minimum wages to be admissible to those part-timers working in the doctor's dispensary or consulting room, as the Notification dated 11-2-2009 contains Explanation for the purpose of Notification, wherein, Item No. 4 reads as under : "(4) The workers employed on part-time basis shall be paid 50% of the minimum rates of wages plus special allowance, if he works upto four hours and if he works more than four hours, he shall be paid full minimum rates of wages plus special allowance." Thus, as per said notification, it is deemed fit by the State that employees, who are working in the dispensary and consulting rooms of doctor for even a period of four hours, then, he is eligible to receive 50% of minimum rate of wages plus special allowance and if the employee in such employment namely consulting room and dispensary of doctors working for more than four hours, than, in such a case, he is entitled to receive full minimum rate of wages plus special allowance. In the instant case, the petitioner is admittedly working for six hours and yet she has been given consolidated fixed wages of Rs. In the instant case, the petitioner is admittedly working for six hours and yet she has been given consolidated fixed wages of Rs. 1,350/- relying upon the archaic resolution dated 23-9-1998, which has not been revised since then. 28. The petitioner-applicant, who is admittedly working for six hours a day i.e. for more than four hours in the establishment of the Government, then, she and/or similarly situated other employees cannot be denied the benefits of receiving minimum wages, which Government itself has prescribed for part-time employees working in the dispensary and consulting rooms of the doctors. It is also required to be noted that the order pressed into service namely the order dated 20-10-2010 passed in Civil Application No. 11445 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 17106 of 2007 passed by this Court (Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi, J.) is also an order pertaining to part-time employees working in the State Government establishments and receiving fixed wages of Rs. 1,350/- p.m. Therefore, when this Court has considered that Division Bench's order made in Public Interest Litigation namely Special Civil Application No. 2492 of 2009, wherein, the State Government Resolution dated 29-4-2010 is extensively referred to which indicated that Class-IV employees have been receiving wages by way of fixed pay of Rs. 3,500/- and even that wages are required to be revised and reconsidered in light of 6th Pay Commission Recommendations. Therefore, when the learned Single Judge of this Court has ordered payment of fixed wages of Rs. 3,500/- p.m. to a part-time employee receiving fixed wages of Rs. 1,350/-. It cannot be said to be an order equating part-timers of the State to those employees covered by the order of Division Bench in P.I.L. and in whose favour orders are made in Special Civil Application No. 2492 of 2009. Therefore, as could be noted from the order itself that the employees covered by that order were already receiving revised pay scale of Rs. 3,500/- as per the Resolution dated 29-4-2010, and that was found to be based upon recommendations of 5th Pay Commission. Therefore, as could be noted from the order itself that the employees covered by that order were already receiving revised pay scale of Rs. 3,500/- as per the Resolution dated 29-4-2010, and that was found to be based upon recommendations of 5th Pay Commission. Court has further observed that now the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission have been implemented with effect from January, 2006, and therefore, it was said to be desirable for the State Government to determine the fixed wages of Class-IV and Class-III employees taking into consideration the minimum wages fixed in pursuance of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission corresponding to Class-IV and Class-III regular employees. 29. Now, in this case, the petitioner has not sought any further relief as it is actually ordered in case of the employees covered by Special Civil Application No. 2492 of 2009. The petitioner has only prayed that she be either given the wages of Rs. 3,500/- which was revised fixed pay as per Resolution dated 24-9-2010, which was based upon the 5th Pay Commission Recommendations only, or, she may be paid the minimum wages as prescribed and provided in Government Resolution dated 11-2-2009. The petitioner is entitled to claim proper reasonable treatment from State as the State has prescribed full minimum rate of wages plus special allowance to part-time employees working for more than four hours in dispensary of doctors or consulting rooms and very State, therefore, cannot deny this wages that is equated to minimum wage plus special allowance which are made admissible to the part-time employees of doctor's dispensary and consulting rooms, who are putting more than four hours of part-time work to its own employees like present petitioner, who are admittedly working for six hours a day. The denial, therefore, is in my view, squarely hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 30. It is required to be noted at this stage that State has adhered to archaic G. R. of Finance Department dated 23-9-1998, wherein, at that time, it was fixed that Class-IV part-time employees, who have put in work upto six hours a day were entitled to Rs. 1,350/- and based thereupon, today, in the year 2011 also, the same rate is continued to be given to the employees like present petitioners. 1,350/- and based thereupon, today, in the year 2011 also, the same rate is continued to be given to the employees like present petitioners. It is nobody's case that the consideration prevailing when this wages were fixed in the year 1998, are now not relevant or applicable in the present days of galloping inflation and hardship. The all faction of employees have been receiving periodical revision in their wages, and therefore, there exist no earthly reason for not revising the wages of the part-time employees, who are working in the State till today and receiving wages only based upon the archaic Resolution dated 23-9-1998 without their being any upward revision therein. The State authorities cannot deny the fact that from the year 1998 till 2011, the wages of their regular employees have been revised twice and even the minimum rate, which was admissible in the year 1998 has undergone sea-change and revision upward in the year 2011 as could be seen from the State's own Notification dated 11-2-2009. Therefore, in my view, appropriate direction is required to be issued in this Civil Application while allowing the same : I. The respondent hereinabove is directed to pay the wages to the present applicant, which are equivalent to full rate of minimum wages plus allowance, which have been made applicable by the State to be paid to the part-time employees working in the dispensary and consulting rooms of the doctors for more than four hours from the date of this application. II. Or in the alternative, it would be open to the respondent to pay fixed monthly wages of Rs. 3,500/- p.m. to the applicant from the date .of this application. III. The arrears of wages from the date of application till its actual payment be worked out based upon aforesaid direction and shall be paid on or before 1st March, 2011, and in case, if it is not paid, then, the interest on arrears shall be paid at the rate of 8 % p.a. till the same is actually paid. IV. It would be open to the respondent authorities namely the respondent No. 1 to revise the wages to be accorded to its part-time employees under G. R. dated 23-9-1998, which need to be based upon and are to be analogous to the price and rates applicable for fixing the minimum wages in the current year. IV. It would be open to the respondent authorities namely the respondent No. 1 to revise the wages to be accorded to its part-time employees under G. R. dated 23-9-1998, which need to be based upon and are to be analogous to the price and rates applicable for fixing the minimum wages in the current year. In case, if this exercise is undertaken and State comes to appropriate wages, by way of revision of its own G.R. dated 23-9-1998 and fixes appropriate wages for part-timers, then, it would be open to the State to pay wages to the present applicant on that basis, which in my view, would in no way be less than whatever is ordered to be paid to the applicant in this order in direction (I) and (II) hereinabove, but pending the aforesaid exercise, as per liberty given in direction hereinabove, the respondents are under obligation to pay the wages either as per direction No. (I) or (II) mentioned hereinabove. 31. With this observation, Civil Application is partly allowed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. Application partly allowed.