JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The appeal is ADMITTED. Learned advocate Mr.Adeshra, appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of both the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition, whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the same by quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.04.2007 passed by the original respondent-authorities and has directed the appellants to hold the original petitioner No. 1 be entitled to Class-IV post on the date of his termination. 4. The facts recorded by the learned Single Judge, is that the Respondent No. 1 (original petitioner No. 1) was appointed as a ‘Part Time Sweeper-Safai Kamdar’ vide order dated 10.01.1994 passed by the Joint Industries Commissioner, Gandhinagar on fixed pay of Rs.600/- per month. However, later on, the wages were revised to Rs.900/- and were further revised to Rs.1350/- on 01.09.1998. The respondent No. 1 continuously worked for a period of 9 years and after ending of 9 years, he was terminated from the service. It appears that thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 4927 of 2001, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.12.2001 by the learned Single Judge by directing the State authorities to consider his case as per the Government Resolution dated 26.12.1980 and in light of the observations made by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7156 of 1996 vide order dated 22.04.1999. Thereafter, the appellant-State authorities, more particularly, the Additional Industries Commissioner, Gandhinagar vide order dated 24.04.2007 rejected the case of the respondent No. 1 seeking regularization as well as reinstatement. The said order was challenged, after a period of 7 years by filing the captioned writ petition, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.10.2017, which is under challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, at the outset, has submitted that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a part- time worker on fixed wages and hence, being a part-time worker, he is not entitled to claim regularization that too after his services was terminated. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, at the outset, has submitted that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a part- time worker on fixed wages and hence, being a part-time worker, he is not entitled to claim regularization that too after his services was terminated. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A. Singamuthu, (2017) 4 SCC 113 . 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has also submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in directly ordering the respondent No. 1 to be entitled to the appointment on Class-IV post from the date of his termination, which is illegal and against the settled legal precedent. She has submitted that the State Government has not opted any policy, which entitles the part-time employees to be regularized in service. Thus, it is urged that the present Letters Patent Appeal may be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. J.A. Adeshra, appearing for the respondents has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference since the same is appropriately passed. He has read out the entire judgment and has submitted that 67 other employees, who are working in other departments of the State Government, have been regularized, which have also been recorded by the learned Single Judge while passing the order. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 was illegally terminated at the relevant point of time and hence, he is entitled to be reinstated in the Class- IV post from the date of his termination, as precisely done by the learned Single Judge. 8. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. We have also perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. The facts, established from the pleadings, are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a part-time sweeper vide order dated 10.01.1994 on a fixed salary of Rs.600/- and after rendering 9 years of services, he was discontinued. We have also perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. The facts, established from the pleadings, are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a part-time sweeper vide order dated 10.01.1994 on a fixed salary of Rs.600/- and after rendering 9 years of services, he was discontinued. He assailed such action by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 4927 of 2001, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.12.2001 by the learned Single Judge by directing the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 (original petitioner No. 1), as per the Government Resolution dated 26.12.1980 and in light of the observations made by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7156 of 1996, vide order dated 22.04.1999. Accordingly, the respondent-Additional Industries Commissioner, Gandhinagar passed an order dated 24.04.2007 rejecting the case of the respondent No. 1 for regularization as well as reinstatement by observing that the Policy dated 26.12.1980, which was introduced by the Finance Department and as referred by the learned Single Judge was already kept in abeyance by the State Government. It is further specifically stated by the Commissioner that there is no vacant post of Class-IV employee available. This order was passed in the year 2007 and after a period of seven years, the respondent No. 1 approached this Court by filing a writ petition and challenged the same the year 2014. 10. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 24.04.2007 and further held that the respondent No. 1 is held entitled to Class-IV post from the date of his termination. In our opinion, such direction is uncalled for since the respondent No. 1 was a part-timer and he was terminated or discontinued from services in the year 1998 and never served as Class-IV employee. After a period of seven years, he is ordered to be treated as Class-IV employee through no sanctioned post of Class-IV was available. This vital aspect has been ignored by the learned Single Judge, while issuing the said direction. So far as the observations made by the learned Single Judge of regularizing 67 another employees by the State Government are concerned, it is pertinent to note that when the respondent No. 1 was terminated, he assailed his termination by filing the writ petition however, the learned Single Judge at the relevant time relegated the matter to the State Authorities. So far as the observations made by the learned Single Judge of regularizing 67 another employees by the State Government are concerned, it is pertinent to note that when the respondent No. 1 was terminated, he assailed his termination by filing the writ petition however, the learned Single Judge at the relevant time relegated the matter to the State Authorities. His status remained as such till the year 2014, when the writ petition was filed. It is not pointed out whether these employees were terminated and regularized on Class-IV posts. 11. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of A. Singamuthu (supra), in a case of regularization of a part-time employee, after considering the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of the State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 , which are as under: “14. In a similar issue, concerning part-time sweepers, the State of Tamil Nadu has filed an appeal before this Court, and those appeals were allowed by this Court by judgment dated 21.02.2014 in Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. Thiru. R. Govindasamy and Others, (2014) 4 SCC 769 . After referring to various judgments on this issue, in paras (5) to (7), this Court held as under: “5. The issue involved here remains restricted as to whether the services of the part-time sweepers could have been directed by the High Court to be regularised. The issue is no more res integra. 6. In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 this Court held as under: (SCC p. 40, Para 48) “48. … There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules.” 7. In Union of India v. A.S. Pillai (2010) 13 SCC 448 this Court dealt with the issue of regularisation of part-time employees and the Court refused the relief on the ground that part-timers are free to get themselves engaged elsewhere and they are not restrained from working elsewhere when they are not working for the authority/employer. Being the part-time employees, they are not subject to service rules or other regulations which govern and control the regularly appointed staff of the department. Therefore, the question of giving them equal pay for equal work or considering their case for regularisation would not arise.” 15. In State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Daya Lal and Others, (2011) 2 SCC 429 , this Court has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and this Court clearly laid down that part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they do not work against any sanctioned posts. It was also held that part-time employees in government-run institutions can in no case claim parity in salary with regular employees of the government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Relevant excerpt from the said judgment is as under: “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) High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularization 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 regularization of services of an employee which would be violative of constitutional scheme. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an employee which would be violative of 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 regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized. (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 regularization, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularization in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularization 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 regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of part time temporary employees. (v) Part time temporary employees in government run 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.” 12. The said judgment has been further considered by the Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Ilmo Devi (passed in Civil Appeal Nos. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.” 12. The said judgment has been further considered by the Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Ilmo Devi (passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5689-5690 of 2021 vide judgment dated 07.10.2021) 2021 SCC Online SC 899 and the Supreme Court has reiterated that the part-timers are not entitled to regularization as they are not working on any sanctioned post. The Supreme Court has held thus: “8.5 Even the regularization policy to regularize the services of the employees working on temporary status and/or casual labourers is a policy decision and in judicial review the Court cannot issue Mandamus and/or issue mandatory directions to do so. In the case of R.S. Bhonde and Ors. (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that the status of permanency cannot be granted when there is no post. It is further observed that mere continuance every year of seasonal work during the period when work was available does not constitute a permanent status unless there exists a post and regularization is done. 8.6 In the case of Daya Lal & Ors. (supra) in paragraph 12, it is observed and held as under: “12. We may at the outset refer to the following well- settled principles relating to regularisation 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. 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”. 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 government-run 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, (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. 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, (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 ] 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. 8.8 Applying the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order, more particularly, directions in paragraphs 22 and 23 are unsustainable and beyond the power of the judicial review of the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the Union of India/Department subsequently came out with a regularization policy dated 30.06.2014, which is absolutely in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), which does not apply to the part-time workers who do not work on the sanctioned post. As per the settled preposition of law, the regularization can be only as per the regularization policy declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim the regularization as a matter of right dehors the regularization policy. Therefore, in absence of any sanctioned post and considering the fact that the respondents were serving as a contingent paid part-time Safai Karamcharies, even otherwise, they were not entitled for the benefit of regularization under the regularization policy dated 30.06.2014. Therefore, in absence of any sanctioned post and considering the fact that the respondents were serving as a contingent paid part-time Safai Karamcharies, even otherwise, they were not entitled for the benefit of regularization under the regularization policy dated 30.06.2014. 8.9 Though, we are of the opinion that even the direction contained in paragraph 23 for granting minimum basic pay of Group ‘D’ posts from a particular date to those, who have completed 20 years of part-time daily wage service also is unsustainable as the part-time wagers, who are working for four to five hours a day and cannot claim the parity with other Group ‘D’ posts. However, in view of the order passed by this Court dated 22.07.2016 while issuing notice in the present appeals, we are not quashing and setting aside the directions contained in paragraph 23 in the impugned judgment and order so far as the respondents’ employees are concerned.” 13. Thus, no order directing the State Government to regularize the part-timer, that too after his termination can be passed in absence of any sanctioned post in existence at the relevant time. The status of a part-timers can not be altered to that of a Class-IV employees. 14. In view of the above, the present Letters Patent Appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The order dated 13.10.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in captioned writ petition is hereby quashed and set aside. 15. As a sequel, Civil Application does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.