JUDGMENT : G.K. VYAS, J. The instant special appeal has been filed by appellant, Smt. Uji Devi, under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 laying a challenge to the validity of order dated 05.08.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Review Petition No.106/2014 and the order dated 07.01.2014 passed in SBCWP No.895/2013 whereby the learned Single disposed of the writ petition and dismissed the review petition filed by the appellant/writ-petitioner filed against the order dated 07.01.2014. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that undisputedly the appellant/writ-petitioner was appointed on 01.12.2002 as part-time Cook at a meager salary of Rs.600/- per month in the Government SC/ST Hostel at Ahlore, District Jalore, run by the Social Welfare Department of the Govt. of Rajasthan. The salary of appellant/petitioner was enhanced in the year 2006. The appointment was given to the petitioner on 01.12.2002 for preparing food for the students of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the hostel of Ahore. On 15.12.2006 a prayer was made by the appellant/writ-petitioner to regularize her services and to grant regular pay scale, however, the said request was not adhered to by the respondents, therefore, she approached the labour court for redressal of her grievances. In the conciliation proceedings, it was stated by the respondent Department that she was not appointed by the Department, rather she was appointed by the Mess Committee, therefore, after failure of conciliation proceedings, the dispute was forwarded to the Labour Department and the appropriate Government referred the same for adjudicating the dispute to the Industrial Dispute Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jodhpur. 3. The learned Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur dismissed the claim of the appellant/writ-petitioner while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 vide its award dated 26.09.2008 (Annex.2 to the writ petition). The learned Judge, Labour Court gave finding that there is no evidence on record to prove that the workman was appointed against the sanctioned post but it is proved that she was appointed as Cook on temporary basis on daily wages, therefore, she is not entitled for regularization because as per paragraphs 53 and 55 of the Uma Devi’s judgment, she had not completed ten years of service, the said award was never challenged by the appellant. 4. 4. The respondent passed an order on 16.11.2012 for engagement of Cooks and Chowkidars on contract basis, therefore, a writ petition was preferred by the appellant before this Court to challenge the said order, so also, the advertisement (Annex.8) issued by the respondent Department for appointment on contract basis. The writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was listed in the court along with other 7 writ petitions on 07.01.2014. The learned Single Judge while taking into consideration the facts stated in SBCWP No.1208/2013-Madharam Vs. State & Ors., decided all the 7 writ petitions and passed the following order, which reads as under: “The present batch off writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order as the point in issue in all these writ petitions relates to payment off minimum wages to the petitioners who are working as part timers as Cook/Chowkidars in the respondent Social Welfare Department. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. D.R. Kawadia submits that he has filled an additional affidavit in the Court on 2/1/2014 and has produced the copy off Treasury Challan showing payment off minimum wages for the month off July, 2013 amounting to Rs..4316/- to the petitioner Madha Ram in SBCWP No.1208/2013. He further submits that similar affidavits have been filed in all the writ petitions and he further undertakes that the respondent-Social Welfare Department will make payment off minimum wages to all the petitioners in accordance with law. He, therefore, urged that all the writ petition have now become in fructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the same. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed off on the aforesaid undertaking off the learned counsel for the respondent. However, in case the petitioners have not received the complete payment off minimum wages, they are free to approach the civil court for recovery off the short payment made to them by way of civil suit. Copy off the order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.” 5. The appellant/writ-petitioner preferred a review petition against the order dated 07.01.2014 by which bunch of writ petitions were decided along with writ petition filed by the petitioner. Copy off the order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.” 5. The appellant/writ-petitioner preferred a review petition against the order dated 07.01.2014 by which bunch of writ petitions were decided along with writ petition filed by the petitioner. In the review petition, it was specifically pleaded that prayer of the appellant is altogether different, than other writ petitions but learned Single Judge dismissed the review petition on the ground that the respondent’s counsel (Social Welfare Department) gave undertaking to the effect that minimum wages to all the petitioners will be paid in accordance with law, therefore, no case is made out for interference. It was further observed that if payment of minimum wages will not be received, then she will be free to avail remedy before the civil court. 6. In this appeal, the order dated 07.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.895/2013 as well as order dated 05.08.2015 passed in Review Petition No.106/2014 are under challenge. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is performing the duties as Cook since her appointment in the Govt. SC/ST Hostel, Ahore run by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department and performing her duties as Cook to prepare food for the students of the hostel of SC/ST, therefore, obviously she cannot be termed as part-time employee because she has to work whole of the day for preparation of food. The learned Single Judge decided the controversy without considering the facts of the case. It is further argued that since 2002 the appellant is performing duties as full-time employee, but still getting remuneration on daily rate basis, which is totally unconstitutional act of the respondents. It is also submitted that in the year 2008 when labour dispute was decided by the learned Judge, Labour Court, the appellant did not complete ten years of service, therefore, her claim for regularization was not considered in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), but now she had completed more than ten years of service, therefore, the respondents are under obligation to consider her case for regularization in view of verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Uma Devi’s case. It is further argued that the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the judgment passed in Uma Devi’s case (supra) in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. It is further argued that the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the judgment passed in Uma Devi’s case (supra) in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SCC 5176 held that minimum of pay scale of the regularly engaged Govt. employee performing the same duty or holding the same post, is required to be paid to such employees because under Article 39D of the Constitution of India, every employee is entitled for equal pay for equal work. On the basis of above facts, it is prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the appellant/writ petitioner for regularization and grant at least minimum of pay scale to her prescribed for the post of Cook because the appellant is preparing food for all the students residing in Govt. SC/ST Hostel, Ahore. 8. Per contra, Mr. K.L. Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General vehemently argued that as per Uma Devi’s judgment, no person can claim regularization as a matter of right because the appointments are to be made after following the procedure laid down by the Rules. Therefore, the learned Judge Labour Court, Jodhpur rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization and pay scale and held that she is not working against the sanctioned post. Further, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and review petition held that the respondents are accepting to pay minimum of wages, therefore, no interference is warranted. He, therefore, argued that there is no case in favour of appellant so as to claim regularization and regular pay prescribed for the post of Cook because she was appointed as part time employee and her appointment was not in accordance with law. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges from the facts that the respondents are not dispute the engagement of the appellant/writ-petitioner on the post of Cook but under the label of part-time employee. It is beyond imagination that a lady who is preparing food for the students of the Govt. SC/ST Hostel, can be termed as part-time employee because she is required to prepare food in the morning and evening and for preparation of food, she is required to perform all the works including cleaning of the utensils and kitchen as well. It is beyond imagination that a lady who is preparing food for the students of the Govt. SC/ST Hostel, can be termed as part-time employee because she is required to prepare food in the morning and evening and for preparation of food, she is required to perform all the works including cleaning of the utensils and kitchen as well. It is beyond imagination to think that a lady who is working since 2002 is not entitled for minimum of pay scale inspite of the fact that she is performing her duties for preparing food in the morning and evening. In common parlance every woman including, mother, wife and sister performing their duty for preparation of food in the house are known as ^^vUuiw.kkZ” and their services cannot be equated in money and it is the duty of all the family members to respect her and provide her all facilities and maintenance for duties performed for preparation of food. A cook is required to satisfy all the beneficiaries of food daily by his/her performance; and in this case, admittedly the appellant is performing duties as Cook since 2002 but not getting even minimum of the pay scale so as to maintain herself and her family. As of now the appellant had completed more than ten years of services. Under Article 39D of the Constitution of India each and every citizen and authorities are under legal obligation to respect the provisions of Constitution of India. But, herein this case, on the basis of technicalities the rightful claim of the appellant has been denied arbitrarily and illegally. No doubt as per verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), all appointments must be in accordance with law, but at the same time this Court cannot loss sight of the fact that since 2002, the State Government is not recruiting any regular Cook/s in the Govt. Hostel for preparation of food for the students of SC/ST category staying in the hostels and the appellant, is performing duties as Cook since 2002 but respondent- Department is still treating appellant as part time employee, which is not permissible in law. 10. We, accordingly, deprecate the act and action of the respondents whereby they had denied minimum of the pay scale even after judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra). 10. We, accordingly, deprecate the act and action of the respondents whereby they had denied minimum of the pay scale even after judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra). It is true that as per verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court regularization can be claimed after ten years of service if the sanctioned post is available. Now the question arises as to why in the hostels, which are run by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department so as to perform the welfare duty, the posts are not filled in till date; and why regular recruitments are not made. It is big question which is to be considered by the welfare State. Thus, in the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant/writ-petitioner is entitled for grant of regular pay and regularization on the post of Cook as she is serving in the respondent Department from last more than ten years, however, on account of inaction on the part of the respondents, she has been denied regularization. If the respondent State is strictly following the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra), then the State Government is under obligation to respect the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra), in which the Apex Court held that as per principle of equal pay for equal work under Article 39D, the minimum of pay scale should be given to the employees working on work charge, daily wages, casual, adhoc, contractual or like. The relevant paragraphs 54 and 55 of the said judgment in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra) reads as under: “54. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle off ‘equal pay for equal work’ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number off judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters off the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters off the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. 55. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost off his self worth, and at the cost off his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, off paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.” 11. In view of aforesaid discussion and considering the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, the instant appeal is hereby allowed and the orders impugned dated order dated 05.08.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Review Petition No.106/2014 and the order dated 07.01.2014 passed in SBCWP No.895/2013 whereby the learned Single disposed of the writ petition, are hereby quashed and set aside qua the appellant and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant/writ-petitioner for regularization in accordance with law and grant regular minimum of the pay scale at least from the date of judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra). The arrears may be given to the appellant/writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.