JUDGMENT : This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 04.05.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3476 of 2012. 2. In “State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh& Ors.” reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even an employee who is working on daily wages cannot be denied wages in minimum of pay-scale. 3. The petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 3476 of 2012 came to this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent-State for payment of minimum of pay-scale. They have placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(S) Nos. 4731 of 2001, 4720 of 2001, 5387 of 2002 and 5538 of 2008. 4. This review petition has been filed primarily on the ground that the writ petitioners have worked under the department for different periods and only till March, 2009 and they have been paid their proper wages and, therefore, in a writ petition filed in the year 2012 no direction for payment of minimum of pay-scale can be issued. 5. Ms. Amrita Sinha, the learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand tenders a chart of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 5538 of 2008 and the batch of the writ petitions being W.P.(S) No. 3475 of 2012 and batch cases. On the basis of this chart the learned counsel for the State submits that none of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 3475 of 2012 and analogous cases were petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 5538 of 2008 and, therefore, they are not entitled for payment of minimum of pay-scale. 6. Before I proceed to deal with the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, it needs to be recorded that several months after the contempt petitions were filed and the contemnor has appeared and filed show-cause reply, this review petition has been filed. 7. This review petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation which is 30 days from the date of the order and there is no application for condonation of delay filed by the review petitioners. Even otherwise, there is no explanation by the review petitioners for not preferring a petition for review within a reasonable time. This review petition which appears to have been filed to avoid the contempt proceedings is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 8. Even otherwise, there is no explanation by the review petitioners for not preferring a petition for review within a reasonable time. This review petition which appears to have been filed to avoid the contempt proceedings is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 8. On merits also, I do not find any ground to review the order dated 04.05.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3475 of 2012 and batch cases. 9. In the first place it needs to be recorded that the chart prepared by the learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand is not relevant, for the claim of the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions is not based on the ground that they were petitioners in the earlier round of litigation also. 10. Secondly, in the order dated 04.01.2011 which has been issued by the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation it is clearly recorded that several persons who were engaged as Pump Khalasi, Pump Operator, Mechanic Khalasi etc. and not even working on sanctioned post have been paid minimum of pay-scale. This letter/order further records that in view of the Resolution dated 18.06.1993 on account of which the petitioners in W.P.(S) Nos. 4731 of 2001, 4720 of 2001 and 5387 of 2002 and several other cases were not regularized in service due to non-availability of sanctioned posts shall also be paid minimum of pay-scale. In the order dated 04.05.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3475 of 2012 and batch cases, the writ Court has held as under: “4. The aforesaid stand taken by the respondents is palpably erroneous. The department seems to have misinterpreted its own orders. In the context of letter dated 04.04.1989 and 03.01.1997, it needs to be recorded that an employer which continued to engage daily-wagers like the petitioners till 01.09.2009; petitioner no. 4 in W.P.(S) No. 3481 of 2012 was engaged on 01.09.2009, cannot deny similar benefit to the petitioners which has already been granted to others. Unsustainability of the plea taken by the respondent-State becomes apparent when one finds the reason behind engagement of the petitioners. Engagement of Shrampust workers is precisely for the reason that posts have not been sanctioned and while so, payment in minimum of scale cannot be denied to the petitioners on a plea that they are working on the posts which are not sanctioned. Engagement of Shrampust workers is precisely for the reason that posts have not been sanctioned and while so, payment in minimum of scale cannot be denied to the petitioners on a plea that they are working on the posts which are not sanctioned. In the previous proceedings before the Writ Court, directions were issued for payment of wages in the minimum of scale. In the order dated 04.01.2011 issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, the department has accepted that grant of wages in minimum of scale of pay to the daily-wages employees, like the petitioners, is in consonance with the natural justice. Engagement of Shrampust workers has continued in the State of Jharkhand even after its creation on 15.11.2000. The respondents have not brought on record any circular, notification or guidelines, either adopting the previous notifications issued by the Government of Bihar or issued by the Government of Jharkhand itself. In “State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors” (2017) 1 SCC 148 it has been held that an employee cannot be denied wages in minimum of pay scale even if he is working on daily wages. It is not the case pleaded by the respondent-State that the posts of Jeep Driver, Nalkup Khalasi, Key-men-cum-choukidar etc. do not exits under the department and it is also not the case of the respondent-State that the petitioners are not discharging duties and responsibilities discharged by the regular appointees. Insofar as, cut-off date fixed in letter dated 04.01.2011 is concerned, the same cannot be insisted upon by an employer which has itself acted in breach of its own decision for decades together. Denial of wages in minimum of pay scale to the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal.” 11. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh case and the order dated 04.01.2011, the writ petitioners who were similarly situated and covered by the aforesaid orders were entitled to get minimum of pay-scale and, therefore, I find no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the State of Jharkhand that the persons who have ceased to work under the Department after March 2009 cannot seek a direction for payment of minimum of pay-scale. Moreover, if the writ petitioners had worked only till 2009 this fact was known to the State and, therefore, this fact by itself which does not fall under Rule 1 Order XLVII CPC is not a ground to review the writ Court’s order and the plea that they cannot agitate a claim arisen in the year 2009 or before was available to the State when the writ petition was decided but not taken by the State and, therefore, this plea which is primarily founded on a fact cannot be permitted to be taken in the review proceeding. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any substance in this review petition and, accordingly, Civil Review No. 05 of 2019 is dismissed.