JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. The two writ petitions being similar with common cause of action are taken up together for disposal by this Judgment and order. 2. Heard Mr. C Baruah, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B Baruah for the petitioners and Mr. R Dubey, the learned counsel for the respondents Indian Oil Corporation. 3. The WP(C)No. 5065 of 2009 has been filed by three writ petitioners while WP(C)No.5068 of 2009 is filed by a single writ petitioner. The prayer of the writ petitioners in both the cases is for regularization of their services under the respondent authorities w.e.f. the date of their initial joining in the posts and also for payment of their arrear salaries and benefits entitled to them. 4. The writ petitioners in WP (C) No. 5065 of 2009 were given call letters for appearing in the interview before the Selection Committee to be held on 31.10.1995 vide call letters dated 14.10.1995 (Annexure-A, A1 and A2). After going through the selection process through the written test held on 16.7.1995 and the interview held on 31.10.1995, the petitioners were selected for appointment against the Grade-I post under the respondent establishment and they joined their respective posts on 13.1.1997, 20.8.1997 and 20.8.1997 respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that out of the candidates engaged on and from 1.2.1996, 13.5.1997, eleven candidates were confirmed against their posts but the petitioners have not been confirmed. The petitioners in fact were engaged for less than 45 days at a stretch with a basic pay of Rs.2234/- per month and an artificial break for two to three days was made between their engagements after less than 45 days. Although the petitioners were given their respective employment registration numbers, they were asked to sign on blank paper and the purpose of which is not known to them. 5. The writ petitioner in WP (C) No.5068 of 2009 similarly was appointed by the respondent authorities. However, in his case, his appointment was by means of a welfare measure since his father retired in the year 1994 from the respondent corporation. He was appointed to the Grade-I post in the General Workshop Department on 31.12.1993 with a basic salary of Rs.1040/- per month. He was also similarly engaged for less than 45 days at a stretch with an artificial break of two to three days between his engagement. 6. He was appointed to the Grade-I post in the General Workshop Department on 31.12.1993 with a basic salary of Rs.1040/- per month. He was also similarly engaged for less than 45 days at a stretch with an artificial break of two to three days between his engagement. 6. The petitioners approached the respondent authorities to give them regular appointment and in response to their request, they were assured that they would soon be given regular appointment. Although the other similarly situated persons were regularized in their services, the petitioners having not been regularized despite the claim of the respondent authorities that their names were put up before the higher authorities for consideration, they are before this Court. 7. Mr. C Baruah, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners although were duly selected by a regular process by the respondent authorities, they have been engaged only for less than 45 days at a stretch with artificial breaks and on fixed pay which is much less than the amount given to regular employees. The same is therefore most arbitrary, illegal and whimsical. He submits that when similarly placed persons can be regularized in their services, there is no reason as to why the petitioners should be deprived of such regularization and the benefit of regular pay scale. In order to substantiate his argument he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Peoples Union for Democratic Rights & Ors –vs- Union of India & Ors reported in (1982) 3 SCC 235 . He submits that the Apex Court in the case under reference has considered as to whether there is any breach of Article 23 of the Constitution of India when a person provides labour or service to the State or to any other person and is paid less than the minimum wage for it. In such case, it can be legitimately presumed that when a person provides labour or service to another against receipt of remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, he is acting under the force of some compulsion which drives him to work though he is paid less than what he is entitled under the law to receive. In such case, it can be legitimately presumed that when a person provides labour or service to another against receipt of remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, he is acting under the force of some compulsion which drives him to work though he is paid less than what he is entitled under the law to receive. He would not be in a position to bargain with the employer and he would have to accept what is offered to him and in doing so, he would be acting not as a free agent with a choice between the alternative but under the compulsion of economical circumstances and the labour or service provided by him would be equal forced labour attracting Article 23 of the Constitution which prohibits forced labour. Thus, he contends that the Apex Court decided the case in favour of the labourers. 8. Mr. C Baruah, the learned senior counsel further relies upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab & Ors –vs- Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in 2017 (1) GLT (SC) 47. By referring to paragraph-55 of the said Judgment, he submits that an employee engaged for the same work as held by the Apex Court cannot be paid less than another person who performs the same duties and responsibilities in a welfare State. Such action besides being demeaning strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to the family at the cost of his self respect and dignity and at the cost of his self worth and at the cost of his integrity. Thus, the Apex Court held that employee concerned would be entitled to draw wage at the minimum of the pay scale i.e. at the lowest Grade in the regular pay scale extended to regular employees holding the same post. Mr. C Baruah thus submits that considering the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the above two cases, the plight of the petitioners also being similar, the respondent authorities should be directed to extend similar benefits to the petitioners while regularizing their service in view of their appointments being routed through regular process and similarly placed employees having been regularized. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. R Dubey, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents submits that as a part of social measure to provide employment to the local population, it was decided to employ six temporary sweepers at Digboi Refinery. Accordingly, six temporary posts of Sweepers were notified to the Employment Exchange on 7.4.1995 for recommending suitable candidates. In response to the same, the Employment Officer at Digboi sponsored 258 names for the posts. All the candidates were called for the written test and out of which 55 candidates were called for the interview. Based on the criteria that was adopted, the Selection Committee recommended 17 names for appointment of temporary Sweepers in order of merit wherein the names of the petitioners in WP (C) No. 5065 of 2009 figured at Serial No. 6, 9 and 8 in order of merit amongst the nine persons recommended for appointment. He submits that as can been seen from the form of notification of vacancies, the nature of the employment was clearly shown to be temporary and accordingly the petitioners were engaged for specific period which was less than 45 days. As set out in their engagement letter, the petitioners were made known of the nature of their engagement and to which, as a token of acceptance, they had duly subscribed their signatures. In such event, the petitioners cannot have a legitimate claim for appointment on regular basis under the respondent authorities. In so far as the salary of the petitioners are concerned, he submits that their respective salaries have been enhanced from time to time and in fact besides their salaries, the petitioners have been given other benefits and allowances which can be clearly seen from their respective pay slips that has been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition. As for the decisions rendered upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, he submits that the petitioners are in fact getting more pay than what has been held to be entitled in the case of Jagjit Singh & Ors. (supra). 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. (supra). 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. The two issues which in fact are the prayer of the writ petitioners which requires consideration is as to whether the petitioners have the right to be regularized in service and secondly if not, whether they are entitled to similar salary given to the regular employees under the establishment of the respondents. 11. As can be seen from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, the nature of employment notice issued by the Employment Exchange indicates that posts sought to be filled up were temporary posts. As regards the pay and allowances, a certain scale of pay has been indicated in the notice of employment. Although due process was undertaken in selecting eligible candidates for the Grade-I post (Sweeper) under the establishment of the respondents, the same cannot by itself give the petitioners a right to claim regularization. The manner in which the concerned post is to be filled up is to be only decided by the employer by giving due intimation to the aspiring applicant for the posts. The same would however have to be in terms of the relevant policy, guidelines or rules for that matter. In the instant case as well, the petitioners apparently have not been kept in dark about the nature of the appointment and for which reasons, I am of the considered view that regularization as claimed by the petitioners cannot be as a matter of right but however the respondent authorities having undertaken some process in regularizing a few of the appointees would be at liberty to consider regularization of the petitioners. 12. As regards the pay and allowances of the petitioners, the employment notice clearly reveals that a certain pay scale was prescribed for the posts and going by the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, pay and allowances given to them have been enhanced from time to time. Admittedly, the respondents are engaging employees on regular pay scale and another set of employees such as the petitioners on a certain pay scale which presumably is lower than the regular scale. Admittedly, the respondents are engaging employees on regular pay scale and another set of employees such as the petitioners on a certain pay scale which presumably is lower than the regular scale. Considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (Supra) as well as Peoples Union for Democratic Rights & Ors (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in the above two cases would cover the case of the petitioners. The petitioners in short are entitled to draw their wages at the minimum of the pay scale at the lowest minimum wage in the regular pay scale extended to regular employees holding similar posts. If the same works out to more than what they are being currently paid the amount which is higher shall be paid to the petitioners. It is ordered accordingly. 13. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. No cost.