JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. Civil Application (for amendment) No. 1 of 2019 is allowed. At the outset, learned advocate Ms. Sadhana Sagar seeks permission to withdraw Civil Application (for fixing date of hearing) No. 2 of 2019. Request is acceded to. Civil Application No. 2 of 2019 stands disposed of as withdrawn. 2. At the outset, learned advocate Ms. Sadhna Sagar for the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment and order dated 09.05.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1155 of 2019. 3. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of the order of termination from service. 4. The affidavit filed by the respondents dated 25.01.2015 reveals that the service of the petitioner was terminated in view of the policy of the State Government introduced vide Government Resolution dated 10.02.2006. It is further stated that the Government vide order dated 25.04.2012 has decided not to give any extension to the person appointed on the temporary basis after 31.05.2012. 5. Thus, the undisputed fact remains that in view of the Government Resolution dated 10.02.2006 issued by the Finance Department, the service of the petitioner was terminated. The Division Bench of this Court, after examining the provisions of circular dated 10.02.2006 and other ancillary Government Resolutions, vide judgment dated 21.12.2018 has observed thus: "13. In addition to above, learned Single Judge has considered other decisions of the Apex Court including that of Uma Devi (supra) which also covered an exception for those who are working with authority or establishment of State within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India for more than 10 years by holding that four conditions laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra) are fulfilled in the facts of the case namely, initial appointment of the employee was legal meaning thereby in the manner contingency and completely with scheme as contained under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that employee has put in 10 years of service or more than and continued in service when taking shelter of any courts' order and that there existed sanctioned post. Learned Judge accordingly noticed that the State Government had passed Government Resolution dated 1.5.2007 as amended by resolution dated 16.5.2008 providing for one time regularization of all part-time/ad hoc/temporary employees who had put in 10 years or more services and the fact about and we are of the view that since establishment was in existence for years together formality of declaring the same as sanctioned would not come in the way of petitioners receiving atleast minimum of pay-scale in lowest grade-pay when their claim towards permanency and regularization is rejected by learned Single Judge. Even benefits of arrears of salary is also not granted and held to be entitled w.e.f to receive their salary namely, minimum of salary in the lowest grade-pay with that all regular employees on the same post w.e.f. 1.1.2019 and thus, rights of the employees to be permanent employees by seeking regularization is not accepted by learned Single Judge. Thus, reasoning of learned Single Judge and limited acceptance of prayer, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be termed as contrary to law. 14. That submission made by learned AGP based on decision rendered in the case of State of Tamil Nadu (supra) had no substance as such inasmuch as, in the above case the Apex Court in para 16 of the decision referred to the case of State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal (supra) wherein principle of equal pay for equal work qua Government employees vis-à-vis part-time and casual employees of Government run institutions was the background in which such law was laid down and it is held that part-time employees is not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against sanctioned post or there cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. No such direction is given in these cases by learned Single Judge and the only direction is about payment of minimum wages in the lowest pay-grade available to the regular employees on the same post. No such direction is given in these cases by learned Single Judge and the only direction is about payment of minimum wages in the lowest pay-grade available to the regular employees on the same post. If the law laid down in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (supra) is considered to which, we have already made a reference, it is held that ad hoc and temporary employees have right to receive minimum of wages in the lowest pay-grade and the facts and circumstances of these appeals which emerge on record that duties discharged by the employees-original writ petitioners is akin to temporary and ad hoc employees and nomenclature is about part-time employees but discharge of their duties with utmost sincerity and no complaint from the employer for years together deserve consideration for limited relief of grant of minimum of pay scale without benefits of permanency or regularization. We are in agreement with law laid down by this Court while dealing with Letters Patent Appeal No. 107 of 2009 and Writ Petition (PIL) No. 244 of 2014 in similar such facts and circumstances and Hindustan Lever (supra)." 6. In this view of the matter, the respondents are hereby directed to examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench in the judgment and order dated 09.05.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1155 of 2019 and allied matters. In case it is found that they are identically situated to the respondents of Letters Patent Appeal, then they shall also be conferred similar benefits. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. 7. The present petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.