ORDER 1. This order shall govern disposal of Contempt Petition No.1037/2015 & Contempt Petition No. 1039/2015 as both the cases allege disobedience of order dated 18.5.2011 in W.P.(s) 6284/10 & W.P. (s) 6287/10 which were decided based on common order passed by learned single judge of this Court in a bunch of petitions including W.P. (S) 2600/09 [Mahesh Mishra v. State of M.P.] with following directions:- “7. The relief claimed by the petitioners in these petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Bhaskar Sharma's case referred above and in view of the judgment in the said case, Mr. Praveen Newaskar, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/State submits that these petitions may also be disposed of by the Court by passing such order/orders, as may be deemed appropriate. 8. This Court does not find any reason not to grant the relief that has already been granted by this Court to several identically placed employees of the respondents. It shall also not be out of place to mention that the respondents themselves have implemented the direction given by this Court to Bhaskar Sharma's case to many of it's daily wagers, who were classified and conferred the status of permanent employee. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the respondents cannot be permitted to discriminate between identically situated employees in the matter of grant of pay scale to them when they themselves have already classified the petitioners as permanent employees vide different classification orders passed in their cases from time to time. Accordingly, all these petitions are finally disposed of with directions to the respondents to grant regular pay scale to all the petitioners w.e.f. the date of classification orders by which they were classified and conferred the status of permanent employee. The arrears of salary be paid to them within a period of four months of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to regular pay scale from the date they were classified as permanent employee in the classification order and this benefit of regular pay scale shall be given to them only from the date of passing of classification order their cases. Needless to mention that the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have given up all the other reliefs, if any, claimed by them in the present petitions. Needless to mention that the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have given up all the other reliefs, if any, claimed by them in the present petitions. Hence all other reliefs except the relief granted by today's order are dismissed as not pressed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 2. Pertinently order dated 18.5.2011 passed in W.P.(s) 6284/10 was challenged by State in W.A.629/2012 which was disposed of by order dated 8.10.2012 vide A/2 upholding the order of learned single judge with observation that execution of the order of learned single judge would be subject to final order passed by apex Court in similar cases. 2.1 For a considerable period of time, there were conflicting views about pecuniary entitlement of daily wager who was classified as permanent employee under Standing Orders. Some of the Courts held that a workman who is classified as permanent employee is entitled to all benefits which are admissible to substantively appointed person on corresponding post, while some of the Courts were of different views. 2.2 Difference of opinion between different Courts on the said issue came to be authoritatively answered by apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat v. Sri Ashwani Ray & Ors. reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 by holding that the said two kinds of employees cannot be equated but a workman who has been classified as permanent employee under the Standing Order is entitled to minimum of pay scale admissible to a civil post without increments. 2.3 Said judgment of Ram Naresh Rawat (S) was delivered sometime in the end of 2015. 2.4 Thus, respondents in the present case were obliged to comply with the direction of learned Single Judge dated 18.5.2011 in 2015-16 by extending benefits emanating from the aforesaid order. 2.5 At this stage, learned counsel for respondents informs that order dated 18.5.2011 has been complied with by depositing requisite amount due to petitioner in his Union Bank A/c. 3. In view of above, compliance though has been made today in toto but with delay of 8 years. 3.1 To explain the delay learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others v. Kumari Aarti Saxena (Civil Appeal No(s). 5814/2011) of apex Court rendered on 26.9.2019 to justify delayed compliance. In view of above, compliance though has been made today in toto but with delay of 8 years. 3.1 To explain the delay learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others v. Kumari Aarti Saxena (Civil Appeal No(s). 5814/2011) of apex Court rendered on 26.9.2019 to justify delayed compliance. 3.2 A perusal of the order in Kumari Aarti Saxena (s) reveals that same turns on it's own facts and benefit as extended to said Kumari Aarti Saxena (s) was based on peculiar set of facts & circumstances available in that case which is evident from reading of para 10 of the said judgment which is reproduced below :- “10. ...It is further made clear that if in respect of any other person there is individual enquiry pending based on the benefit claimed under the order dated 17.11.2004 or similar orders, the same shall not stand affected by the benefit that is granted to the respondent herein which is in the peculiar fact of the present case keeping in view the order of the Labour Court and the benefit granted thereunder and also the subsequent status which the respondent on her own merit has acquired due to long satisfactory service.” 3.3 In view of above, no assistance can be derived from judgment of Kumari Aarti Saxena (s). 3.4 The only protection extended by Division Bench of this Court while deciding W.A.629/2012 on 8.10.2012 is that execution of the order of learned Single Judge shall remain subject to the order passed in similar cases. Last similar case of Kumari Aarti Saxena (s) came to be decided in September, 2019. 3.5 Thus, it was obligatory on the part of respondents herein to have complied with direction of Singele Bench dated 18.5.2011 after dismissing W.A.629/2012 on 8.10.2012 by this Court and while complying the grant of benefit ought to have been made subject to final outcome of similar cases pending in Supreme Court. 3.6 The case of Kumari Aarti Saxena does not help respondents since SLP preferred by State was dismissed. 3.7 In view of the above there has been delay of nearly 8 years in compliance of directions of this Court. 3.8 The petitioner who is a man of meagre means being class-IV employee was made to wait for the fruits of litigation for which he deserves to be compensated. 4. 3.7 In view of the above there has been delay of nearly 8 years in compliance of directions of this Court. 3.8 The petitioner who is a man of meagre means being class-IV employee was made to wait for the fruits of litigation for which he deserves to be compensated. 4. More so, this contempt petition is a frivolous piece of litigation which ought to have been avoided but same was filed for reasons solely attributed to respondents alone. The petitioner was put to the travails of long drawn litigation and more so precious time of this Court was also wasted since last 5 years in dealing with this avoidable piece of litigation where occasion to file contempt should not have arisen at all. As such, respondents have rendered themselves liable for imposition of exemplary cost. 5. Accordingly rule nisi is though dropped but respondents No. 6 & 7 are saddled with cost of Rs 25,000-25,000 (total Rs. 50,000/- in both the petitions) out of which Rs. 15,000/- each shall be paid to the petitioners and remaining Rs.10,000/- in each case (Rs. 20,000/-) shall be deposited in favour of Incharge Medical Officer Civil Dispensary New High Court in his bank A/c bearing No. 50100288396628, IFS Code HDFC0002744, HDFC Bank, Branch office at Morar, Gwalior for purchase of safety equipments of Covid-19 protocol to be distributed among the officers and employees of the M.P. High Court Gwalior Bench, to survive and stay healthy during ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. 6. Subject to above directions, Contempt Petition 1037/2015 (Ram Das Kushwah v Shri Ashwani Rai & Others) & Contempt Petition 1039/2015 (Gopal Kushwah v. Shri Ashwani Rai & Others), are disposed of. Devesh Sharma for petitioner; R.V.S. Tomar for respondent No.1: R.K. Upadhyay for other respondents.