JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs: "(i) The respondents may kindly be directed to grant minimum pay scale equal to regularly appointed computer operator with machine. (ii) the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the remuneration to the petitioners directly. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Honble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that their representation may be considered by the respondents in light of the judgment in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors. : (2017) 1 SCC 148 . The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of equal pay for equal work Page 101 summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of equal pay for equal work would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post. 61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the payscale (- at the lowest grade, in the regular payscale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post." 3. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners in terms of judgment in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra). The needful be done within a period of 60 days from today.