JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Sri D.M. Tripathi, Sri Kripa Shanker Shukla, Sri Kunwar Ravi Prakash, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla and Sri BalramYadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Manik Sinha, and Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents-University i.e. Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technilogy, Kumarganj Faizabad (now Ayodhya). 2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in the batch of these writ petitions, therefore, these writ petitions are being decided by the common order. 3. In almost all the writ petitions, the prayer has been made to the effect that the opposite parties be directed to pay the minimum of the pay scale for Class-IV and Class-III posts, on which the petitioners are working on daily wages basis since their engagement and their case for regularization be considered. 4. In the batch of these writ petitions, the petitioners have been discharging their duties of respective posts of Class-IV and Class-III since long time. 5. In the present leading writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.1814 (S/S) of 2017, learned counsel for the petitioners have drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, which is a judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 passed by this Court in the batch of writ petitions, bearing Writ Petition No.4677 (S/S) of 2000 and other connected writ petition, relating to the petitioners. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 is being reproduced here-in-below:- "The writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the University shall frame a scheme for regularisation of Class-III and IV employees, who are working on daily wage basis in a phased manner within a period of four months and submit the same before the State Government, who will consider and take a decision on the scheme submitted by the University within four months thereafter and the opposite parties shall consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation, in accordance with law, as soon as the posts are sanctioned by the State Government. Till the services of the petitioners are not regularised, the opposite parties shall not make any fresh recruitment on regular basis either on Class-III or Class-IV posts and shall pay the minimum of the pay scale of the respective posts on which the petitioners are working. Till the services of the petitioners are not regularised, the opposite parties shall not make any fresh recruitment on regular basis either on Class-III or Class-IV posts and shall pay the minimum of the pay scale of the respective posts on which the petitioners are working. The benefit of this order shall be given only to those daily wage employees who are working at present. In the circumstance there shall be no order as to costs." 6. The aforesaid judgment was assailed before the Division Bench of this Court by filing a Special Appeal and the order of Special Appeal dated 25.11.2003 is contained as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Special Appeal. 7. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, the order dated 25.11.2003 passed by the Division Bench of this Court has not been assailed before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said order/judgment has attained its finality to the effect the order of learned Single Judge dated 16.04.2002 has become final. 8. It has been informed at the bar that in the batch of these writ petitions the petitioners have been provided the interim order to the extent that the petitioners would be entitled to draw wages on the minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade in the regular pay scale) extended to the regular employees performing similar work assigned to the post concerned, however, without any allowances. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when the order of learned Single Judge was not complied with, some of the petitioners filed the Contempt Petition before this Court and in the Contempt Petition notices were issued and thereafter the opposite parties started making payment of minimum wages to the petitioners deducting the wages for Holidays. 10. Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent-University has produced the copy of office memo dated 30.04.2019 issued by the Director, Administration and Monitoring of the University, which is taken on record. 11. As per the aforesaid office memo dated 30.04.2019, the decision has been taken that the daily wage employees would be regularised as per the scheme of the University if they would fulfill the conditions thereof. Obviously, the seniority and qualification for the post in question would be the criteria. 11. As per the aforesaid office memo dated 30.04.2019, the decision has been taken that the daily wage employees would be regularised as per the scheme of the University if they would fulfill the conditions thereof. Obviously, the seniority and qualification for the post in question would be the criteria. The office memo dated 30.04.2019 further provides that the daily wage employees would be paid the minimum wages of Rs.7000/-per month including the government Holidays as per Negotiable Instruments Act and weekly Holidays, but in any case if the daily wagers are absent, the salary for that period of absence shall be deducted. 12. On being asked whether the petitioners would be paid the minimum scale of pay or minimum wages since the term of minimum wages has been indicated in the office memo dated 30.04.2019, the learned counsel for the University has submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: Secretary of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006 4 SCC 1 and the subsequent judgment in re: State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 the daily wagers are entitled for the minimum wages only, therefore, the same is being paid. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the daily wagers are entitled for the minimum of pay not the minimum wages, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn attention of this Court towards the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others reported in [ 2019 (160) FLR 90 ], wherein the judgments of State of U.P. & others vs. Putti Lal (2006) 9 SCC 337 and Jagjit Singh (supra) have been considered. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in paras-8, 9, 10 & 11 of the aforesaid judgment, which are being reproduced here-in-below:- "8. The daily wagers relied upon a judgment of this Court in Putti Lal (supra) and submitted that the same relief may be extended to them. It is relevant to note that the judgment in Putti Lal (supra) relates to a dispute similar to that involved in this case. Daily rated wage earners in the Forest Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh approached the High Court for regularization of their services. It is relevant to note that the judgment in Putti Lal (supra) relates to a dispute similar to that involved in this case. Daily rated wage earners in the Forest Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh approached the High Court for regularization of their services. The Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad directed the State Government to constitute the Committee as directed in order to frame the scheme for regularization. The judgment of the High Court that the daily rated wage workers shall be paid at the minimum of the pay scales was affirmed by this Court on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Division Bench of the High Court while deciding Special Appeal No.1530 of 2007 referred to the judgment in Putti Lal (supra) but placed reliance on a later judgment of this Court Tilak Raj (supra). The Division Bench of the High Court also cited the case of Surjit Singh (supra) to hold that the daily wagers cannot seek the benefit of the judgment of Putti Lal (supra) case in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court wherein, according to the High Court, it was held that daily wage employees were not entitled to the minimum of the pay scales. 9. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) held as follows: “58. 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. Anyone, 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 of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of 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.” 10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post. 11. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the Appellants-herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the regularization of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly situated to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh (supra) that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service." 14. It has been informed by Sri Manik Sinha, learned counsel for the University that in compliance of the order dated 16.04.2002 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4677 (S/S) of 2000 and other connected matters the cut off date for the regularisation has been fixed as 16.04.1992 as this court has observed that the daily wagers are working for about ten years, therefore, the cut off date was fixed as 16.04.1992 i.e. ten years from the judgment dated 16.04.2002. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid analogy now the cut off date should be extended considering the length of service of the petitioners hereto for last ten years. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid analogy now the cut off date should be extended considering the length of service of the petitioners hereto for last ten years. However, it is upto the University Authority to fix another cut off date of regularisation for the petitioners hereto keeping in a view the same analogy which was considered earlier while fixing the cut off date for regularisation as 16.04.1992. 15. Needless to say that the University shall formulate the appropriate scheme for regularisation keeping in a view the fact that the cut off date for the regularisation was fixed as 16.04.1992 in terms of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4677 (S/S) of 2000, so now after 17 years from the date of order dated 16.04.2002 new cut off date should be fixed strictly as per analogy which was considered earlier by the University in terms of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 (supra). This Court believes and trusts that the University authority shall determine/ fix another cut off date with promptness, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. reported in (2006) 3 SCC 297 has held that the security of tenure is essential for an employee so that he can give his best to the job. The object can be attained by regularisation of the employees within a reasoned period. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held in para-21 that both employers and employees have their respective obligations. They must have the appreciation of each other's responsibilities, duties and obligations. The trade union and labour union should understand and appreciate the fact that labour is not a commodity nor is it a mere supply of labour force at the management's disposal. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has followed the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118 . 17. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has followed the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118 . 17. Hon'ble Apex Court in re: State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Kesari and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 following the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held that if the appointment of an employee is not illegal and he/ she is working substantially long period, have worked for 10 years or more, the government should consider the regularisation of those employees. 18. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material available on record and the office memo dated 30.04.2019, I am of the considered view that so far as the prayer for regularisation of the petitioners is concerned, the same shall be considered by the opposite party i.e. Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj Faizabad (now Ayodhya), strictly as per the scheme and the services of the petitioners shall be regularised strictly in terms of the said scheme considering their seniority and their qualifications which may be necessary for the posts in question inasmuch as while considering the regularisation of the petitioners, this Court expects that the University shall not make any discrimination and while considering the claim of the petitioners seniority would not be ignored if they are suitable as per the scheme. To be more precise, this Court expects that the factum of seniority should not be ignored while considering the regularisation of the petitioners but the relevant fact that whether those senior persons are having requisite conditions/ qualifications in terms of regularisation scheme may also not be ignored. 19. So far as the payment of minimum scale of pay is concerned, as per the settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cetana of cases as referred above, I am of the considered view that the daily wage employees/ petitioners are entitled to minimum of pay scale till they are regularised in service. It is however clarified that the petitioners shall be entitled only for those leaves which are admissible for the daily wage employees. It is however clarified that the petitioners shall be entitled only for those leaves which are admissible for the daily wage employees. However, no deduction for government holidays admissible as per Negotiable Instruments Act and working holidays shall be made from the petitioners as per admitted stand of the respondent-University and the petitioners shall not be discriminated in any way and they shall not be subjected to any harassment for the reasons that they have filed the writ petitions before the Court of law for redressal of their grievances. 20. In view of the above, the aforesaid batch of writ petitions are allowed. 21. No order as to cost.