JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. ADMIT. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of admission on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself. 3. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the order dated 19.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the captioned writ petition by directing the appellant – authorities to reinstate the respondents and also to pay minimum pay- scale, as envisaged in the Circular dated 16.07.2019 issued by the Government of Gujarat through its Finance Department with effect from 01.01.2019 till the date of reinstatement and continue to do so till the date of their superannuation. 4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw, appearing for the appellants has contended that the directions contained in paragraph No. 11.2 of the impugned order directing the appellants to pay minimum wage till the date of superannuation is misconceived since all the respondents were employed as part-timers and by issuing such directions, it can be construed that they have to be employed till they reach at the age of superannuation. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, has further submitted that in fact, all the respondents were terminated in the year 2006 and pursuant to their termination, a writ petition has been filed by them and a decision was taken by the appellant-authorities not to reinstate them. He has submitted that the said decision was assailed by the respondents in the captioned writ petition and accordingly, the learned Single Judge fell in error in issuing such directions. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, has further submitted that the respondents being part-timers cannot, as a matter of right, claim to continue till the age of superannuation. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt, appearing for the respondent – employees has submitted that the issue raised in the Letters Patent Appeal as well as in the writ petition is no more res integra in view of the various decisions passed by this Court. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt, appearing for the respondent – employees has submitted that the issue raised in the Letters Patent Appeal as well as in the writ petition is no more res integra in view of the various decisions passed by this Court. She has placed reliance on the recent decision passed by the learned Single Judge, on the very same issue, dated 19.07.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6852 of 2020 and allied matters. Learned advocate Ms. Bhatt, has further submitted that the State filed an appeal against the said judgment and order being Letters Patent Appeal No. 724 of 2023 and allied matters, which were also dismissed by the judgment dated 11.08.2023. She has submitted that in fact, the Letters Patent Appeals were confined to the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No. 17, which relates to Clause 1 of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, whereas the rest of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 19.07.2022 were accepted. 7. Learned advocate Ms. Bhatt, has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered the very same judgment and ultimately, has issued directions in line of the judgment dated 19.07.2022. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may not be entertained. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi, has also submitted that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, more particularly in paragraph No. 11.2 of the impugned order, would in fact mean that the respondent-employees, who are working on part-time basis, are required to be continued till they reach the age of superannuation. He has submitted that till the status of the respondent-workmen remain as the part- timers, they cannot claim to be continued till they reach the age of superannuation. 9. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. 10. The captioned writ petition was filed by the respondent-employees claiming the following reliefs: “35..... (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the impugned order dated 17.07.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 rejecting the representation of the petitioners to quash and set-aside the termination order dated 01.05.2006 passed by respondent no. 5 for reinstating them in service and granting them fixed monthly pay of Rs. 3 rejecting the representation of the petitioners to quash and set-aside the termination order dated 01.05.2006 passed by respondent no. 5 for reinstating them in service and granting them fixed monthly pay of Rs. 14,800 with effect from 01.01.2019 as per the Finance Department circular dated 16.07.2019, as arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and without application of mind and thus violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and quashing in setting aside the same. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to extend the petitioners the benefits contained in Finance Department circular dated 16.07.2019 by reinstating them in service and granting them fixed monthly pay of Rs. 14,800 and the fact from 01.01.2019.” 11. The learned Single Judge, after recording the fact of the earlier writ petition and the correspondence entered between the employees and the appellant authorities, has ultimately held that the termination of the respondents was illegal, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 10.02.2006. 12. It is not in dispute that the termination of numerous employees, due to the action of the State Government in framing the policy of outsourcing by issuing the Government Resolutions dated 10.02.2006 and 25.04.2012, was subject matter of challenge in various writ petitions, whereby, the termination of the employees/part-timers was declared as illegal in view of the Resolutions dated 10.02.2006 and 25.04.2012. The respondents are similarly situated and are terminated in view of the policy of outsourcing. 13. The recent decision is dated 19.07.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6852 of 2020 and allied matters, which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge. In the decision dated 19.07.2022, the learned Single Judge, in paragraph No. 4, has categorized the status of the employees/part-timers, the same is as under: “4. Based on the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective petitioners and the learned AGPs on behalf of the State of Gujarat, 8 categories were carved out for adjudication and interpretation of the circular. Following are the categories: (1) Challenge to the entitlement of the benefit of the circular because of the rejection of cases those persons who are appointed for less than four hours. (2) Rejection on the ground that the petitioners have approached the Court belatedly after termination. Following are the categories: (1) Challenge to the entitlement of the benefit of the circular because of the rejection of cases those persons who are appointed for less than four hours. (2) Rejection on the ground that the petitioners have approached the Court belatedly after termination. (3) Rejection on the ground that such persons who are appointed on fixed pay basis and for 29 days in a month with one day’s artificial break are not entitled to the benefit of the Circular dated 16.7.2019. (4) Rejection on the ground that the persons working on outsourcing by virtue of the GRs dated 10.2.2006, 1.4.2010 and 25.4.2012 cannot get the benefit of the Circular dated 16.7.2019. This included a category of persons engaged on project work. (5) Denial of the benefit of the Circular dated 16.7.2019 on the ground that there are no orders of appointments issued to the petitioners. (6) Denial of the benefit of the Circular dated 16.7.2019 on the ground that the petitioners are part time employees who were appointed after 31.5.2012 and are therefore, not entitled to get the benefit of the circular dated 16.7.2019 as there was a complete ban on engaging part time employees as per the GR dated 25.4.2012. (7) Denial of the benefit to such Class-IV employee on the ground that they are not working on sanctioned posts. (8) Persons whose cases are rejected on the ground that they are working with the Panchayat.” 14. The learned Single Judge, after considering the Policy dated 16.07.2019, issued by the Finance Department and also the action of the respondents (appellant-authorities) in terminating the part-timers in view of the Government Resolutions dated 10.02.2006 and 25.04.2012 and considering the array of judgments has ultimately held the action of the respondents in terminating such employees as well as not conferring the minimum pay-scale as per the Circular dated 16.07.2019 as illegal. The aforesaid judgment was subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench by filing various Appeals being Letters Patent Appeal No. 724 of 2023 and allied matters, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench. The aforesaid judgment was subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench by filing various Appeals being Letters Patent Appeal No. 724 of 2023 and allied matters, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench. It is pertinent to note that the State had only assailed the decision dated 19.07.2022, so far as the categories (2) and (4) are concerned, which pertain to the conferment of the minimum wage to the workman, as per Circular dated 16.07.2019, wherein it is observed thus: “32. In light of the above discussion, we reached at an irresistible conclusion that the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge in paragraph ‘17’ of the judgment impugned, giving interpretation to Clause-1 of the Circular dated 16.07.2019 to grant benefit of regular pay to the part-time employees working for less than four hours, is based on wrong assumptions. However, in view of the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners in light of the facts of the instant case, as the writ petitioners-respondents herein are covered by the Circular dated 16.07.2019 as they have demonstrated to have been working for six hours or more in a day in different departments of the State Government, we hold that the interpretation of the Circular dated 16.07.2019 in respect to those part-time employees who were/are working for less than four hours in a day, would not arise, in the instant case. 33. For the above, the judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 of the learned Single Judge, in the case of the writ petitioners-respondents herein, is modified with the observation that the issue with regard to the applicability of the Circular/Government Resolution dated 16.07.2019 with regard to the part-time employees working for less than four hours, is left open for examination by this Court in an appropriate case. The observations made by us hereinabove on the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge in paragraph ‘17’ of the judgment impugned that the circular cannot be restricted to one category of part-time employees, shall not be treated as a binding precedent, inasmuch as, the issue of interpretation of the contents of the Circular dated 16.07.2019, has not arisen in the instant case, in principle. It is further clarified that the observations made hereinabove with regard to the interpretation of the Circular dated 16.07.2019 was only an effort to arrive at a just decision in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 15. After considering the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge in the present writ petition has ultimately issued the following directions: “11.1. The petitioners of SCA No. 5613 of 2020, SCA No. 5941 of 2020 and SCA No. 340 of 2023 having been terminated pursuant to the G.R. dated 10.2.2006, they would be entitled to benefits of Circular dated 16.7.2019 and whereas impugned orders, which have held to the contrary are questioned and set aside. 11.2. Concerned respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners, if they have not reached the age of superannuation and to pay to the petitioners salary in minimum of pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.2019 till the date of reinstatement and continue to do so till the date of their superannuation. 11.3. Insofar as petitioner of SCA No. 23758 of 2022 is concerned, the respondent authorities more particularly respondent No. 5 of the said petition shall examine the case of the said petitioner, more particularly in consultation with respondent No. 4 of the said petition and whereas the authorities shall decide whether the service of the petitioner was terminated pursuant to G.R. dated 25.4.2012. 11.4. In case the respondents are of the opinion that the services of the petitioners have indeed been terminated pursuant to G.R. dated 25.4.2012, the petitioners would also be entitled to the benefits of Circular dated 16.7.2019 as above. In case the services have been terminated independently of G.R. dated 25.4.2012, nothing further is required to be done by the said respondents, whereas under such circumstances, liberty would be reserved in favour of the petitioners of the said petition to challenge the termination order before appropriate Court in accordance with. 11.5. The above exercise to be conducted by the respondent authorities within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and whereas in case the orders are not complied with, within the said time period, then the respective petitioners shall be entitled to arrears with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the petitions till realization of the said amount.” 16. Thus, the issue of setting aside the termination of employees in view of outsourcing policy is no more res integra. However, in the present case, so far as the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No. 11.2 is concerned, we are of the opinion that the appellant-authorities cannot be directed to confer the pay-scale as per the Circular dated 16.07.2019 with effect from 01.01.2019 till such part-timers reach the age of superannuation. This direction can be construed in the manner that the part-timers are required to be continued till the age of superannuation. 17. Except this direction, we do not find any infirmity in other directions, which are issued by the learned Single Judge and hence, the direction issued in paragraph No. 11.2 is modified to the extent that the appellants shall reinstate the respondent-employees and they are entitled to the minimum of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2019 as per the Circular dated 16.07.2019 since the benefit of minimum pay has been made effective from 01.01.2019. Such minimum pay-scale shall be paid till they have ceased from their service or they have retired on reaching the age of superannuation. Such direction cannot bind the appellant to continue the part time employees till they reach the age of superannuation, since the service rendered by the part time employees is not regular and cannot be treated at par with the regular employees. 18. The benefits, as directed by the learned Single Judge except to the extent of paragraph No. 11.2, which we have already clarified, shall be paid to the respondents-employees within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. If the arrears are not paid within the limitation as prescribed by us, the same shall entail the interest of 6% per annum, as directed by the learned Single Judge. 19. In view of the foregoing reasons and analysis, the present Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extend. 20. As a sequel, civil application seeking stay of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, does not survive. The same stands disposed of accordingly.