JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J —By way of this appeal, the appellant''s Counsel has laid challenge to the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 5707 of 2008 dated 5.10.2010, vide which learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition had directed that the salary of the petitioner therein be revised to a lump sum monthly salary by taking into consideration law relating to minimum wages. Learned Single Judge further directed that revised and consolidated salary shall be payable from the date of the passing of the judgment. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that respondent before this Court filed Original Application before the Learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ''Tribunal'') which upon the abolition of the Tribunal was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T) No. 5707 of 2008. The grievance of the petitioner therein was that she was working as Superintendent in Working Women Hostel at Mandi since the year 1983 on a consolidated salary of Rs.800/- per month which subsequently stood revised to Rs.1500/- per month in the year 1999 and her prayer in the petition was for issuance of directions that she be granted regular pay-scale at par with other staff of the respondents therein. Learned Single Judge after taking note of the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that person working as Superintendent in Destitute Children Home, Sunni was getting salary in the pay scale of Rs.600-1200/-(unrevised) and was thereafter enjoying revised pay-scale which stood revised thrice i.e., in the years 1986, 1996 and 2006, held that the petitioner''s case could not be treated at par with that of the Superintendent at Sunni for the reason that petitioner was employed in Working Women Hostel, where she was not supposed to do any work except for taking care of the premises and other property, belonging to the hostel. Learned Single Judge further held that as the Superintendent in Sunni was supposed to be capable of taking care of them around the clock, therefore, the petitioner could not claim any parity with the Superintendent of Sunni. Learned Single Judge further held that as the Superintendent in Sunni was supposed to be capable of taking care of them around the clock, therefore, the petitioner could not claim any parity with the Superintendent of Sunni. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge taking into consideration the fact that the salary of the petitioner was revised as far back as in the year 1999 and also the fact that salary of the petitioner was not equivalent even to that of minimum wages of a labourer, disposed of the petitioner with the direction to the respondents to revise monthly salary payable to the petitioner by taking into consideration law relating to minimum wages. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment passed by learned Single Judge was not sustainable, as Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment failed to appreciate that the appellant Counsel was not having any source to pay to the petitioner wages, as stood mandated by the learned Single Judge. No other point was urged. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant as also learned counsel for the respondents, in our considered view, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. We say for the reason that we do not find any infirmity with the judgment passed by learned Single Judge as all that the Learned Single Judge has directed the appellant is that the respondent/petitioner be paid consolidated wages after taking into consideration law relating to payment of minimum wages. Now, this cannot be the stand of the appellant that it would not even pay respondent/petitioner the minimum wages which otherwise every employer is bound to pay to its employees. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has no source to pay the wages to respondent/appellant is also without any merit because appellant Counsel being an instrumentality of the State can always approach respondent-State as well as the department concerned for the purpose of release of grants in this regard. Therefore, as we do not find any infirmity with the judgment so assailed by way of present appeal, we dismiss this appeal. However, we grant liberty to the appellant Counsel to approach respondent-State for release of grants in its favour so that wages as have been directed by the learned Single Judge stand paid to the petitioner. Therefore, as we do not find any infirmity with the judgment so assailed by way of present appeal, we dismiss this appeal. However, we grant liberty to the appellant Counsel to approach respondent-State for release of grants in its favour so that wages as have been directed by the learned Single Judge stand paid to the petitioner. Appeal stands disposed in the above terms. No order as to costs.