ORDER : (Harinath N., J.) : The petitioners are seeking the extension of benefit of G.O.Ms.No.286, dated 08.10.2008. The said GO is issued extending the monetary benefits equivalent to the time scale to all NMRs working before the cutoff date of 25.11.1993. 2. The petitioners are working as Farm Labour and they are working with the respondent No.2 prior to 25.11.1993. All the petitioners were in service as casual farm labour till January, 1996. The petitioners were engaged under the name of a Contract Labour thereafter. The 1st respondent issued GOMs.No.286, dated 08.10.2008 granting minimum time scale + DA + HRA. 3. The respondents did not extend the benefit of the said GO to several NMR workers though they were working before the cutoff date i.e., 25.11.1993. The respondents have taken a stand that there were breaks in services of the employees and denied extension of the benefits under GOMs.No.286, dated 08.10.2008. Several employees approached this Court in a batch of writ petitions WP.No.28438 of 2008 and batch and WP.No.5650 of 2009. This Court vide order dated 06.07.2012 considered the case of the petitioners therein and held that the action of the respondents was not legal in denying the benefit of the GO to the petitioners therein on account of the deliberately set up artificial breaks in the service. 4. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the respondents have implemented the judgment passed in the batch of writ petitions to all the petitioners therein on 09.11.2012. It is also submitted that the petitioners stand on the similar footing, however, the petitioners could not approach this Court on account of their financial constraints at that point of time. 5. The non-extension of the benefit of GOMS.No.286 to the petitioners selectively ignoring them and extending the benefit of the GO to only of those employees who approached the Court is challenged as an arbitrary act by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 in their counter submit that all the petitioners were engaged as casual labour in the year 1993. It is stated that all the petitioners seized to function as casual labour with effect from 30.06.1995. The learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the 1st respondent has issued GOMs.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 facilitating regularization and absorption of daily wage/NMR or consolidated pay workers. It is stated that all the petitioners seized to function as casual labour with effect from 30.06.1995. The learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the 1st respondent has issued GOMs.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 facilitating regularization and absorption of daily wage/NMR or consolidated pay workers. The condition precedent for regularization of NMR/daily wage workers was that they should have work for a continuous period of five years and continuing as on 25.11.1993. It is submitted that several NMR workers/casual labour could not be regularized due to nonavailability of sanctioned posts. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent has not sanctioned minimum time scale to some of the casual labourers who were already working as casual labour and who were on the muster rolls as on the date of issue of GO due to break in service in the past. 7. The learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioners cannot seek applicability of the judgment passed by this Court in WP.No.5650 of 2009 and batch. It is submitted that minimum time scale was extended only to those employees who were on muster rolls as on 08.10.2008. It is submitted that the petitioners are contract labour working under a contractor and it is the contractor who deploys them in different institutions wherever there is a requirement of work. As such, the claim of petitioners for extension of time scale for employees working under a contractor ought not to be considered. Reliance is placed on the extract of the ledger of Employees Provident Fund Organization wherein the establishment Globe Detective Private Agency Private Limited has been complying the relevant provisions of the Provident Fund Act. The 2nd respondent also places reliance on an agreement dated 01.11.2017 entered between the 2nd respondent and Globle Detective Agency Private Limited. An agreement dated 04.10.2023 entered between the 2nd respondent and one Smt.Alla Lakshmi, Proprietor of Venkata Sai Enterprises, Anakapalli, whereby the petitioners are stated to be working under the said contractor. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners in reply submits that the petitioners are essentially farm labour who assist as Farm Labour in the Agricultural Research Work. The nature of work of the petitioners continued to be that of farm labour since 1993 onwards. 9. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners in reply submits that the petitioners are essentially farm labour who assist as Farm Labour in the Agricultural Research Work. The nature of work of the petitioners continued to be that of farm labour since 1993 onwards. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the nature of work of the petitioners did not change from the date of their initial engagement. Attention of the Court is drawn to the proceedings issued vide ROC.No.B/708/2006, dated 13.10.2006. Whereby, the 4th respondent addressed the said proceedings to the 2nd respondent. Bringing to the attention of the 2nd respondent the representations of the farm labourers seeking appropriate instructions to address the concerns of farm labour. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, and draws the attention of the Court para Nos.58 and 60 reads as follows : “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. 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”. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners’ services as farm labour are routed through a contractor their nature of work is similar to that of other temporary employees/casual employees/NMR workers who are extended the benefit of GOMS.No.286. 12. The issue for consideration is whether the contract labour working under a contractor would be entitled for claiming minimum time scale of an employee working in an organization other than that of the contractor. 13. A distinction between the nature of work between the work of a contract labour and casual labour may not be of relevance. 12. The issue for consideration is whether the contract labour working under a contractor would be entitled for claiming minimum time scale of an employee working in an organization other than that of the contractor. 13. A distinction between the nature of work between the work of a contract labour and casual labour may not be of relevance. The distinction between the contract labour and casual labour can be tabulated as follows : S.No. Contract Labour Casual Labour 1. Contract Labour are hired through a contractor or agency Casual Labour are hired on ad-hoc basis. 2. Contract Labour have some job security as they are hired for a specific project or a specified duration Casual labour have limited job security as their services can be terminated easily. 3. Contract labour would be entitled for some benefits like minimum wage, workers compensation, working conditions and other facilities. Casual labour cannot claim any paid leave or holidays. They cannot expect social security. 4. Contract labour may have more defined working conditions, working hours and wages as specified by the contractor Casual labour have un-certained working conditions, working hours and wages. 14. The above tabulation indicates that contract labour and casual labour may perform similar work, their employment status, rights and benefits differ significantly. 15. Coming to the case on hand, the petitioners are engaged through a contractor under the name and style “Globe Detective Agency Private Limited”. The agreement dated 15.09.2017 indicates that the said agency is engaged in the business of providing manpower services. The nature of work or services of the said agency do not indicate extension of manpower solutions in the agreement. 16. The second agreement dated 04.10.2023 entered with one Smt.Alla Lakshmi, Proprietor of Venkata Sai Enterprises. Both the agreements do not indicate the registration status of the contractor under the Contract Labour Act, 1970. The agreements would lend credence to the claim of the petitioners that the contractors were set up only for the purpose of denying the minimum time scale to the petitioners. 17. The petitioners were engaged through a contractor from the year 1993 onwards. The 1st respondent issued GOMs.No.286 in the year 2008. The 2nd respondent extended the benefit of GOMs.No.286 to those casual labour who are on the rolls of the 2nd respondent on casual basis. 17. The petitioners were engaged through a contractor from the year 1993 onwards. The 1st respondent issued GOMs.No.286 in the year 2008. The 2nd respondent extended the benefit of GOMs.No.286 to those casual labour who are on the rolls of the 2nd respondent on casual basis. The issue considered by this Court in batch of writ petitions referred above is with respect to the artificial break in re-engagement of those casual labour. This Court in the common judgment directed the 2nd respondent to extend the benefit of GOMs.No.286 irrespective of the artificial breaks in their service. 18. This Court is inconsonance with the submissions of the learned standing counsel for the respondents on the aspect of inapplicability of the judgment to the facts of this case. 19. The petitioners have not established the employer and employee relationship in the present case. The nature of work of casual employees, if is similar to that of the regularized employees, such casual employees can be granted the benefit of minimum time scale. However, the petitioners are under a contractor and as such, they would come within the definition of Contract Labour. The law on the aspect of extension of time scale to the employees engaged through a contractor is crystalline. The petitioners would not be entitled for extension of benefit of GOMs.No.286, dated 08.10.2008. 20. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.