ORDER : 1. Rule. Learned AGP for the respondent no.1-State and Mr.Vijay Nangesh for respondent No.3 appear and waive service of rule on behalf of the respective parties. 2. In the present petition, the petitioner is, inter alia, seeking for the following prayers: “(AA) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.06.2014 and order dated 8.5/6.2017 (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction, regularizing the services of the petitioner on the post of Clerk from the date of his initial appointment (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereafter, extending all consequential benefits which includes pensionary benefits with interest thereon” 3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Bipin Mehta appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner may be conferred the benefit of regularization and the minimum of the regular pay-scale as per the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi, 2006 (4) S.C.C. 1 and State of Punjab vs Jagjit Singh, 2017 (1) S.C.C. 148 . 4. The petitioner was appointed as a daily wager on 17.07.1997 in the respondent-Nagarpalika. It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar along with other workers raising Reference (I.T.) No.54 of 2001 claiming regularization. During the pendency of the reference, the petitioner was appointed as a contractual worker since he had agreed to the terms and conditions of the respondent-Nagarpalika to give-up his rights as a daily wager. Accordingly, the petitioner along with other persons were appointed on contractual basis by the resolution dated 21.12.2002. 5. The aforesaid resolution stipulates that the contract will remain in force till 25 years. The petitioner along with other similarly situated employees were granted fixed pay of Rs.2,500/-. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is doing the work of regular employee since 1987 and he has retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.09.2017 as a contractual employee without any benefits. The petitioner along with other similarly situated employees were granted fixed pay of Rs.2,500/-. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is doing the work of regular employee since 1987 and he has retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.09.2017 as a contractual employee without any benefits. He has submitted that there are/were vacant posts available in the respondent-Nagarpalika and accordingly, a proposal was also sent by the Nagarpalika to the Director of Municipalities, however, the same was rejected by the Director of Municipalities for the reason that since the petitioner is appointed on contractual basis, he cannot be absorbed in the vacant post in view of the condition no.7 of the resolution dated 22.01.2004, which is applicable to a permanent and ad hoc employees. He has also submitted that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer in such a manner after serving for so many years. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Vijay Nangesh appearing for the respondent no.3 has submitted that though the Nagarpalika had sent a proposal to the Director of Municipalities, the request was rejected since the petitioner and others are working on contractual basis. He has submitted that the petitioner had given up his rights as a daily wager before the Labour Court and accordingly, he was absorbed on contractual basis and hence, he was not entitled to regularization. 8. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 9. The respondent-authority has not disputed that the petitioner is appointed as a daily wager in the year 1987 and thereafter, he along with other employees had filed Reference (IT) No.54 of 2001 seeking regularization in service. During the pendency of the reference, it appears that the respondent-Nagarpalika appointed the petitioner on contractual basis on certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions was that he would be conferred the fixed pay of Rs.2500/-, however, he has to give up all the claims of daily wagers. Accordingly, the Labour Court dismissed the reference with regard to the petitioner, however, allowed the reference for the remaining employees and directed regularization. 10. Thus, the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis as per his choice giving up his rights to the benefits of daily wagers. Accordingly, the Labour Court dismissed the reference with regard to the petitioner, however, allowed the reference for the remaining employees and directed regularization. 10. Thus, the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis as per his choice giving up his rights to the benefits of daily wagers. The respondent-Nagarpalika by the resolution dated 21.12.2002 while laying down certain conditions has stated that such contract would remain in force till 25 years and he would be entitled to 10% increase every year on the pay on which he is appointed. The petitioner retired as such as contractual employee on 30.09.2017 without getting any benefits of regular pay-scale. It is not disputed by the respondent authorities that the petitioner has been doing similar work of regular employees for all these years. 11. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observation made in the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v/s. Umadevi, (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1 , which reads thus: “53.One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa v. T.Thimmiah and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. (emphasis in original)” 12. The Supreme Court has directed to confer benefit of regularization to the irregularly appointed employees who are working on a sanctioned post for more than 10 years of service without intervention orders of this Court. The petitioner has completed 10 years of service as on 2012. 13. Subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra), after survey of various judgments, including the judgment of the Constitutional Bench rendered in the case of Uma Devi (supra), has held thus: “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. Any one, 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 dependents 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. 59. *** *** *** 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’ 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. 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.” 14. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that 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. The Apex Court has held that such employees who are engaged as daily wagers, on contractual basis, etc. are entitled to minimum of the pay scale which is conferred to regular employees. The Apex Court has held that such employees who are engaged as daily wagers, on contractual basis, etc. are entitled to minimum of the pay scale which is conferred to regular employees. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as a contractual employee from the year 2002 and he has completed 10 years of service in the year 2012. The prior service rendered by him as a daily wager cannot be considered for granting the benefit of regular pay, since he had given up his claim for the same before the Tribunal, and has chosen for contractual appointment. The respondents have appointed him on contractual appointment for a period of 10 years. The life of the contract is for 25 years. It is also not disputed by the Nagarpalika that 74 posts are vacant and hence, the respondent-Nagarpalika instead of employing the petitioner as regular employee have in fact appointed him as a contractual employee and are taking regular work from him. Hence, the respondents are directed to confer the petitioner the benefit of minimum pay-scale of regularly engaged employees. Such benefit shall be granted on completion of ten years of service i.e from 2012 and his retirement benefit shall accordingly shall be fixed and paid. Appropriate orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of writ of the order of this Court. 15. The present petition succeeds in part. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent