JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the respondents be directed to pay the petitioner salary in the minimum of the regular pay scale of Class-IV and furthermore services of the petitioner be regularized as Class-IV sweeper. 2. In the present writ petition it is pleaded that petitioner is working as a sweeper since 01.09.1993 in Government Shastri Sanskrit College, Chauth ka Barawa, Distt. Sawai Madhopur and Govt. Senior Upadhaya Sanskrit School, Chauth Ka Barawa, Distt, Sawai Madhopur. It is further pleaded that since 01.09.1993 from 7 am to 12.30 pm petitioner is performing duties at Govt. Senior Upadhaya Sanskrit School, Chauth Ka Barawa, Distt, Sawai Madhopur and after closure of the school, in the same building where college is being run by the respondents and petitioner worked as sweeper till 5.00 pm. Therefore, a grievance has been made in the present petition that respondents are not justified to pay consolidated salary of Rs.75/- per month, to the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the respondents have denied above assertion made by the petitioner by stating that petitioner has only been engaged as a part time worker and for the same he is being paid salary of Rs.75/- per month. 4. Mr. B. K. Sharma, ld. Additional Govt. Counsel, for the respondents, has stated that petitioner is not being paid salary but honorarium. 5. Whether petitioner is a whole time worker or a part time worker, is a matter which requires evidence and thus, status of the petitioner cannot be determined by this Court. Petitioner, if so advised, may raise an industrial dispute and seek award from the Labour Court. 6. However, the respondents have admitted that petitioner for the services rendered is only being paid Rs.75/- per month. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has rightly stated that petitioner is entitled to receive minimum wages prescribed in the State of Rajasthan. 8. It is not denied that Rs.246/- per month as on today is the minimum wage for a single day in the State of Rajasthan. It is also not denied that the part time worker is to be paid half of the minimum wage prescribed for a single day in the State of Rajasthan. 9. The controversy raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. It is also not denied that the part time worker is to be paid half of the minimum wage prescribed for a single day in the State of Rajasthan. 9. The controversy raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. This Court in case of Hajrai Lal v. State (Medical & Health Dept.) & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8162/2012 decided on 22.02.2017, has passed the following order:- "Today, S.B. Civil Misc. Application bearing Inward No.58482/2016 is listed. Counsel for the petitioner prayed that the respondents be directed to pay minimum wages to the petitioner who is working as a part time sweeper with the respondents. Counsel for the parties have jointly prayed that instead of deciding the application, the present writ petition itself be decided. On the joint request made by the counsel for the parties. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8162/2012 is taken on Board. Petitioner was appointed as a part time sweeper on 01.07.1984 by the respondents. His services were terminated on 01.03.1992. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court, Kota vide award dated 19.12.2003 reinstated the petitioner in the service. Counsel for the respondents submits that since 01.03.1992, petitioner is continuously working as a part time employee with the respondents. In the present petition a grievance has been made that petitioner is being paid Rs.200/- per month. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that petitioner is entitled to receive minimum wages prescribed in the State of Rajasthan. It is contended that Rs.246/- per day is the minimum wages in the State of Rajasthan. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, ld. Govt. Counsel, has very fairly contended that a part time employee is entitled to half of the minimum wage prescribed for a day. In view of fair stand taken by the learned Govt. Counsel, present writ petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner shall be paid half of the minimum wage prescribed for a single day in the State of Rajasthan. Respondents shall also pay arrears to the petitioner by granting him half of the minimum wage prescribed in the State of Rajasthan for a single day by restricting arrears to 38 months before the date of filling of the writ petition. Respondents shall also pay arrears to the petitioner by granting him half of the minimum wage prescribed in the State of Rajasthan for a single day by restricting arrears to 38 months before the date of filling of the writ petition. Arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months for which respondents shall pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 9% from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the present writ petition, a prayer has also been made that services of the petitioner who was working as a part-time Sweeper, be regularized. This prayer made by the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court. The Supreme Court of India in Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai v. R. Govindaswamy & Ors., (2014) 4 SCC 769 , has held as under:- 5. The issue involved here remains restricted as to whether the services of the part-time sweepers could have been directed by the High Court to be regularized. The issue is no more res integra. 6. In State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors: AIR 2006 SC 1806 , this Court held as under: There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. 7. In Union of India and Ors. v. A.S. Pillai and Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 448 , this Court dealt with the issue of regularisation of part-time employees and the Court refused the relief on the ground that part-timers are free to get themselves engaged elsewhere and they are not restrained from working elsewhere when they are not working for the authority/employer. v. A.S. Pillai and Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 448 , this Court dealt with the issue of regularisation of part-time employees and the Court refused the relief on the ground that part-timers are free to get themselves engaged elsewhere and they are not restrained from working elsewhere when they are not working for the authority/employer. Being the part-time employees, they are not subject to service rules or other Regulations which govern and control the regularly appointed staff of the department. Therefore, the question of giving them equal pay for equal work or considering their case for regularisation would not arise. 8. This Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Daya Lal and Ors. (2011)2 SCC 429 has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The same are as under: (SCC p435, para 12) (i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. (ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the Court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be "litigious employment". Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates. (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. (v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute. (Emphasis added)." In view of Clauses (ii), (iv) and (v) of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., (2011)2 SCC 429 , the second prayer made by the petitioner for regularization of services of part-time Sweeper cannot be entertained and the said prayer is declined. However, as per directions issued above, respondents are directed to calculate the minimum wages due to the petitioner. The payment shall be disbursed to the petitioner as per direction issued above and furthermore, the petitioner shall be paid minimum wages for the day, as held above." 10. However, as per directions issued above, respondents are directed to calculate the minimum wages due to the petitioner. The payment shall be disbursed to the petitioner as per direction issued above and furthermore, the petitioner shall be paid minimum wages for the day, as held above." 10. After hearing counsel for the parties and taking into consideration order passed in the Hajrai Lal's case (spura), present writ petition is disposed of by issuing following directions:- (a) Petitioner is held entitled to be paid half of the minimum wages prescribed for a singe day in the State of Rajasthan from time to time by restricting arrears to 38 months from the date of filing of the writ petition. (b) Arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months failing which respondents shall pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 9% from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (c) Hence, forthwith petitioner shall be treated as a part time daily wager and shall be paid half of the minimum wages due to a worker for a services rendered in a month. (d) Whether petitioner is a part time worker or a whole time worker this question is kept open and same shall be adjudicated by the appropriate forum, if raised by the petitioner. (e) In case, appropriate forum come to the conclusion that the petitioner is whole time workman, claim of the petitioner for regularization shall be considered by the respondents as per the policy of the State Government.