JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, a part time Safaikarmi has been allowed with a direction to regularise his services. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants would argue that the direction for regularisation in service, without there being any post and without there being any process of selection in accordance with the recruitment rules through an open competitive examination and any procedure known to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is not permissible. He would further submit that Respondent No.1 is a part time employee, therefore, in any case, no direction for regularisation could be issued in respect of a part time employee. 4. As far as grant of minimum pay of the pay scale admissible to the post of Class IV Employee is concerned, learned Addition Advocate General would argue that minimum pay of the pay scale of Class IV Employee may not be allowed to Respondent No. 1 because he has been working as a part time employee, who cannot be granted minimum pay of the pay scale. He would submit that in any case, as per existing notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages is payable to Respondent No. 1. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that direction for regularisation of services of Respondent No. 1, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 , is misplaced in law because that decision only deals with the issue of equal pay for equal work and on that basis, relief of regularisation could not be granted. 6. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Others Vs. A.S. Pillai and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 448 ; State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Daya Lal and Others, (2011) 2 SCC 429 and recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Ilmo Devi and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5689-5690 of 2021 decided on 07.10.2021. 7. A.S. Pillai and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 448 ; State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Daya Lal and Others, (2011) 2 SCC 429 and recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Ilmo Devi and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5689-5690 of 2021 decided on 07.10.2021. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 would submit that Respondent No. 1 has been working as a part time Safaikarmi in the services of the Panchayat Samiti Bansoor since 1997. He would submit that Respondent No. 1 is being continued in the service on most exploitative terms and conditions. Even after having worked for last more than three decades, Respondent No. 1 has not accorded any permanent status, nor regular pay is being paid to him which is otherwise being paid to regular Class IV Employees. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others (supra), learned counsel would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in any case, has upheld the claim of equal pay for equal work. He would submit that Respondent No. 1 is working as Safaikarmi in the services of the Panchayat Samiti Bansoor, which can be treated to be service in the last rung, i.e. Class IV Employee and, therefore, in any case, he is entitled to minimum pay of the pay scale applicable to the posts of Class IV Employee. Though no document is on record, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, during the course of hearing, submitted that many daily wages employees, who were declared surplus, were regularised from time to time in the year 2010, therefore, on parity also, Respondent No. 1 is entitled to direction for regularisation. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. It is not in dispute that Respondent No.1 has been working as Safaikarmi since 1997. Further, from the pleadings of the parties and various documents, which have been placed on record, we find that engagement of Respondent No. 1 is as a part time employee and he has been working in this capacity since 1997. 10. 9. It is not in dispute that Respondent No.1 has been working as Safaikarmi since 1997. Further, from the pleadings of the parties and various documents, which have been placed on record, we find that engagement of Respondent No. 1 is as a part time employee and he has been working in this capacity since 1997. 10. It is also to be noted that there is no regular and sanctioned post of Safaikarmi as such, but there are posts of Class IV Employees in the establishment of concerend Panchayat Samiti as specified under Rule 258 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. 11. If Respondent No. 1 is a part time employee and he is not working against any sanctioned and vacant post of Class IV Employee in the establishment of Panchayat Samiti concerned, his claim for regularisation is not tenable in law in view of catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 12. In the cases of Union of India and Others Vs. A.S. Pillai and Others (supra), it was held as below: "15. It is true that the petitioners have been working for several years under the respondents as part-timers and they are not getting salary which is given to regular employees but it is also pertinent to note that working conditions of the petitioners and other Bandsmen appointed by the respondents are not same. The petitioners are not in regular employment. They are only part-timers, who perform their duties twice or thrice in a week and they are paid daily wages whenever they perform their duties. In addition to the daily wages, they are also paid certain monthly amount by way of incentive and they are also given allowances for haircut, washing of uniform and at times they are also provided breakfast or lunch. 16. The petitioners were never given regular appointment in any regular cadre. In our opinion, the petitioners do not have any right to get absorbed in any cadre to which they do not belong. In our opinion, the High Court was in error when it expressed its view to the effect that the petitioners were exploited by the respondent authorities, because 80% of the amount received from the civilians was retained by the respondents whereas only 20% of the amount was given to the petitioners. In our opinion, the High Court was in error when it expressed its view to the effect that the petitioners were exploited by the respondent authorities, because 80% of the amount received from the civilians was retained by the respondents whereas only 20% of the amount was given to the petitioners. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners are daily wagers and in addition to the daily wages and other allowances referred to hereinabove, the aforestated amount is paid to them whenever they perform a show at a function organised by civilians. The respondent authorities have imparted training to the petitioners as musicians and uniform is also provided to them by the respondents." 13. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides that part timers are not entitled to regularisation. 14. In another judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Daya Lal and Others (supra), the issue with regard to rights of a part time employee came up for consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Following principles were laid down: "12. We may at the outset refer to the following well-settled principles relating to regularization and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals: (i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. (ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be 'litigious employment'. (ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be 'litigious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates. (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. (v) Part-time temporary employees in governmentrun institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute. [See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 , M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society (2006) 12 SCC 636 , S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279 , Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Mehar Chand (2007) 15 SCC 680 and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1 .]" 15. After laying down the aforesaid principles, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the historical background of existing scheme of regularisation of part time employees in view of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (Writ Petition No. 3453/1994 decided on 26.05.1995). After laying down the aforesaid principles, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the historical background of existing scheme of regularisation of part time employees in view of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh, Banswara Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (Writ Petition No. 3453/1994 decided on 26.05.1995). It was explained that such a scheme was intended to be one time measure and could not be made a basis to seek extension of such one time scheme. Moreover, that was a scheme for regularisation as one time measure of those, who have entered service prior to 01.05.1995. Following observations are pertinent: "20. The part-time cooks and chowkidars were employed on temporary basis in the government hostels in the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. They approached the High Court in the year 1999 (except Madan Lal Yogi who approached in the year 1997). The services of some of them had been terminated within one or two years from the date of temporary appointment. Though the State had taken a decision to terminate all those who were appointed on consolidated wage basis, the other respondents continued because of the interim orders by the courts. Service for a period of one or two years or continuation for some more years by virtue of final orders under challenge, or interim orders, will not entitle them to any kind of relief either with reference to regularisation nor for payment of salary on a par with regular employees of the Department. 21. The decision relied upon by the High Court, namely, the decision in Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Sangh of the High Court no doubt directed the State Government to frame a scheme for regularization of the part-time cooks and chowkidars. It is clear from the said decision, that such scheme was intended to be a one-time measure. Further the said decision was rendered by the High Court prior to Uma Devi (3) relying upon the decision of this Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 122 , Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corpn. (1990) 1 SCC 361 and Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 396 . These directions were considered, explained and in fact, overruled by the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (3). (1990) 1 SCC 361 and Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 396 . These directions were considered, explained and in fact, overruled by the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (3). The decision in Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Singh is no longer good law. At all events, even if there was a one-time scheme for regularisation of those who were in service prior to 1-5-1995, there cannot obviously be successive directions for scheme after scheme for regularization of irregular or part-time appointments. Therefore the said decision is of no assistance." 16. The claim made in the aforesaid writ petition by part time employees was negatived. 17. In a recent judicial pronouncement in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Ilmo Devi and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined such claim of regularisation of part time employees. That being particularly a case of Safaikarmi, it was held as below: "8.7 Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned post and there cannot be any permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees as held. Part-time temporary employees in a Government run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work.'. 18. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to part time Safaikarmi, we are unable to uphold the direction issued by the leanred Single Judge for regularisation of Respondent No. 1, particularly when there does not exist any post on which he could be regularised. 19. As far as claim of equal pay for equal work is concerned, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that Respondent No. 1 is working as a part time Safaikarmi. His services are utilised intermittently and not on regular basis. This aspect is being disputed by learned counsel for Respondent No.1 by submitting that nature of the work done by Respondent No. 1 is not intermittent. 20. The aforesaid aspect cannot be gone into because in the pleadings of the parties and the documents, what emerges is that Respondent No. 1 is a part time employee and not engaged in any other capacity. 21. 20. The aforesaid aspect cannot be gone into because in the pleadings of the parties and the documents, what emerges is that Respondent No. 1 is a part time employee and not engaged in any other capacity. 21. The authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions negatives claim of equal pay for equal work because Respondent No. 1 is a part time employee. Had it been a case that Respondent No. 1 was working as a temporary employee and other employees carrying same duties and functions were paid higher pay, some relief could be granted by this Court. Therefore, on the basis of the material on record, we are unable to grant any relief to Respondent No. 1. 22. We are of the opinion that if Respondent No. 1 had a claim that during pendency of this appeal, he has started working for longer period and can no longer be treated as part time employee, his remedy lies in approaching the Labour Court because adjudication of this factual dispute will require evidence to be recorded. If it can be demonstrated by Respondent No. 1 with appropriate order and documentary evidence that now, he is no longer a part time employee but an employee working for the equal hours as any other Class IV Employee in the establishment and that too, not intermittently for few days in a week but on every working day, certainly, he may raise a claim of similar wages which are being paid to other Class IV Employees, who are working on a regular basis. In any case, minimum wages which are payable under the law, are required to be paid to Respondent No. 1, if the wages, which are being paid to Respondent No. 1 are lesser than the minimum wages prescribed under the latest notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 23. In view of the above consideration, though order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside, writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 is disposed off with following directions: (a) The appellants shall ensure payment of minimum wages to Respondent No. 1 as and when wages have been revised from time to time. (b) The present wages of Respondent No.1 shall not be less than the minimum wages, which are in force as per latest notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. (b) The present wages of Respondent No.1 shall not be less than the minimum wages, which are in force as per latest notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. (c) Respondent No.1 was being paid minimum of the pay of pay scale admissible to Class IV Employees till date and considering that Respondent No. 1 is a Safaikarmi, the appellants shall not make any recovery from him, nor the amount, which has already been paid to him under the interim directions, shall be adjusted against the future wages of Respondent No. 1. (d) Respondent No.1 would be at liberty to approach the Labour Court to seek adjudication that he is no longer a part time employee but working for similar hours as regular Class IV Employees and entitled to at least minimum pay of the pay scale applicable to Class IV Employees. 24. Appeal is, accordingly, disposed off. 25. No order as to costs.