JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged inaction on the part of the respondents seeking following relief/s:- 2. In Special Civil Application Nos. 10552, 10553, 10555, 10556 and 10557 of 2016, the petitioners have prayed for below mentioned relief/s:- "(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court and be pleased to quash and set aside the action of the respondent numbers 1 and 2 in transferring the service of the petitioner to the intermediary agency engaged by way of outsourcing i.e. the respondent no. 3 and thereby depriving the petitioner the benefits attached to the direct employment with the state authorities and also the benefits of past service rendered with the state authorities. (b) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court and be pleased to direct the respondent numbers 1, 2, and 4 to revise the pay of the petitioner with all the consequential benefits as per the relevant notifications and resolutions of the state government. (c) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court and be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner full time employee instead of part-time employee in view of the nature and extent of service rendered by him and be pleased to grant him all the benefits which are admissible to full time employees with all the consequential benefits. (d) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court and be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in view of the perennial nature of duties performed by them over a long time. (e) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents not to terminate the service of the petitioner or alter the service conditions to the prejudice of the petitioner pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. (f) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner appropriate revised pay in consonance with the relevant notifications and resolutions of the state government pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. (f) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner appropriate revised pay in consonance with the relevant notifications and resolutions of the state government pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. (g) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice. 2.1 In Special Civil Application No. 10554 of 2016 the petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief/s:- "(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court and be pleased to direct the respondent numbers 1, 2 and 4 to revise the pay of the petitioner with all the consequential benefits as per the relevant notifications and resolutions of the state government. (b) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court and be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner full time employee instead of part-time employee in view of the nature and extent of service rendered by him and be pleased to grant him all the benefits which are admissible to full time employee with all the consequential benefits. (c) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble Court and be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in view of the perennial nature of duties performed by him over a long time. (d) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents not to terminate the service of the petitioner or alter the service conditions to the prejudice of the petitioner pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. (e) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner appropriate revised pay in consonance with the relevant notifications and resolutions of the state government pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. (f) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice." 3. The brief facts giving rise to present petitions are that the petitioners were appointed as Daily Wager Drivers on different dates under respondents and were posted at different Primary Health Centres. (f) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice." 3. The brief facts giving rise to present petitions are that the petitioners were appointed as Daily Wager Drivers on different dates under respondents and were posted at different Primary Health Centres. They were required to work for full time in the Primary Health Centres. Apart from that they were also required to go with the Medical Officer in the field. Many times they were called during night hours for carrying the patients. They were also required to go out of station for several days in connection with office work. 3.1 Although, they were practically doing the full time work and therefore, they were wrongly treated as part timers by the respondents only with a view to deprive of the benefits attached to the full time employees and the petitioners were given meager remuneration. 3.2 From July 2015, the respondents have introduced an intermediary Agency by way of outsourcing and placed the petitioners under the Agency to render the services with the intention to deprive of the petitioner the benefits attached to the district employment. So there was an attempt to sever the employer-employee relationship so that the respondents were not required to pay various service benefits as per the length of the service. 3.3 In view of the above facts, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of preferring present petitions. 4. I have heard Mr. J.V. Japee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Ms. Khushbu D. Chhaya, learned Counsel for respondent No.3, and Mr. Jay Trivedi and Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondent No.4. 5. Mr. Japee, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that initially the petitioners were appointed as Drivers in different Primary Health Centre for a temporary period and their services came to be extended on need basis. He has further submitted that subsequently on the basis of the policy of the State Government, the petitioners were hired by "Rogi Kalyan Samiti" which is society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. He has further submitted that subsequently on the basis of the policy of the State Government, the petitioners were hired by "Rogi Kalyan Samiti" which is society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. He has further submitted that again in 2010, the Government evaluated the policy for appointing outsourcing agency and the work of the all petitioners-drivers were transferred to the outsourcing agency from 2015 and the said action came to be challenged by the petitioners by way of preferring present petitions. 5.1 Mr. Japee, learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions has referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Vinodkumar Shivrambhai Rathod vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 7462 of 2012 and allied matters wherein, the Court has dealt with the similar issue. The relevant paragraph Nos. 29 to 32 of the said decision read as under:- "29. While disputing the proposition of equal pay for equal work, learned Government Pleader has laid emphasis on the point that the relief granted in the aforementioned decision in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (supra), is not prayed for in the present petitions preferred by the petitioners. 30. It could be seen that the petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2012. The law for the casual labourers, ad hoc employees, part-time employees and outsourcing class IV post has developed with the passage of time. Finally, the Apex Court has put to rest the grievance of the aforementioned class of employees. The Apex Court seems to have taken into consideration the law laid down by various courts, and finally reached to a conclusion that all the concerned temporary employees would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post. As this judgment has been delivered in the year 2016, while the petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2012, it was not in their knowledge to have pleaded for the law laid down in the aforementioned judgment. As this judgment has been delivered in the year 2016, while the petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2012, it was not in their knowledge to have pleaded for the law laid down in the aforementioned judgment. This Court is of the considered opinion that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case as most of the petitioners have come into service through regular selection mode and have put in more than 15/20 years of service. Even otherwise, the arguments raised by the learned Government Pleader cannot be stretched further as it is always the discretion of the Court to mold the relief depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The reliefs claimed in clause (F) seeking regularization is nothing but parity with regularly selected IV employees. As this Court is convinced with the judgment given by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (supra), the relief prayed for by the petitioners can be modified accordingly. 31. Otherwise also, mode of recruitment remains meaningless once the petitioners have put in more than 15/20 years of service. What could be qualification and mode of requirement for Class IV post is a debatable point. All the petitioners were performing the job of class IV employees and discharging and performing the same functions which are being performed by regularly recruited class IV employees. Still further, all the petitioners seems to be fulfilling the requisite qualification. Once their method of recruitment is same and are performing the same duties which permanent employees on the same post are performing, the petitioners cannot be discriminated at the time of payment of wages. 32. As mentioned above, some of the petitioners are out of service after coming into force the Resolution of the State Government dated 31.5.2012. These petitioners were working along with their other counter part prior to 31.5.2012. Since number of Class IV employees of the State got affected because of the Resolution dated 31.5.2012, all the affected persons could not obtain the stay from the courts against their termination. There is no denning fact that all these petitioners are affected by the Resolutions of the State Government dated 25.4.2012 and 31.5.2012. Since number of Class IV employees of the State got affected because of the Resolution dated 31.5.2012, all the affected persons could not obtain the stay from the courts against their termination. There is no denning fact that all these petitioners are affected by the Resolutions of the State Government dated 25.4.2012 and 31.5.2012. They are to be treated at par with the employees who were lucky to get the stay against their termination from the courts. Accordingly, the relief granted by this Court in this judgment shall be extended to all the employees who are affected by the Resolutions of the State Government whether they are continued as outsource employees or are terminated in view of these resolutions." 5.2 Mr. Japee, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the said decision, the Court has deprecated the practice of acquiring work from the outsourcing agency and observed in paragraph No.33 as under:- "31. In view of foregoing discussions, all these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are held entitled to the wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale) extended to the regular employees holding the same post. However, they shall not be entitled to the arrears of salary for the past service. Petitioners shall get the aforementioned pay-scale from 1st of January, 2019. Those out of service shall be immediately taken back in service and be posted at the same post from where they were terminated. They shall also get the salary from the same date unless they have reached the age of superannuation. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent in all the petitions." 5.3 In view of above, Mr. Japee, learned Counsel for the petitioners urges before this Court that present petitions may be allowed and the prayers made in present petitions may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, respondent No.3 has not filed any affidavit-in-reply oppossing the present petitions. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed affidavit-in-reply along with relevant documents and evidence, wherein they have stated that after initial appointment, subsequently on the basis of the policy of the State Government, the petitioners were hired by "Rogi Kalyan Samiti". Thereafter, from 2015, they were transferred to the outsourcing agency. 7. Present petitions are also objected by Mr. Jay Trivedi and Ms. Thereafter, from 2015, they were transferred to the outsourcing agency. 7. Present petitions are also objected by Mr. Jay Trivedi and Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleaders however, they have not filed any affidavit-in-reply but they have referred to and relied upon recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India vs. Iimo Devi reporetd in 2021 (20) SCC 290 and another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2023) 3 SCC 639 . Learned Assistant Government Pleaders, have emphasized upon paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the said decision, which read as under:- "4. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition gave directions for regularisation of the appellant from the date on which his juniors were regularised. This order was challenged by the State Government before a Division Bench which allowed the appeal of the State Government. The Division Bench rightly held that the learned Single Judge has not followed the principle of law as given by this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, as initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily-rated employee must be working. These two conditions were clearly missing in the case of the present appellant. The Division Bench of the High Court therefore has to our mind rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 27-6-2019. 5. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Umadevi (3), the appellant had no case for regularisation. There is no scope, hence, for our interference with the order of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appeal is dismissed." 8. In view of the above, learned Counsel for the respondents and learned Assistant Government Pleaders urge before the Court that present petition may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed. 9. I have perused the relevant document and material placed on record. It is relevant to note herein that the judgment of this Court in the case of Vinodbhai Shivrambhai Radhod (supra) is subsequently challenged by the State of Gujarat by way of preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 1155 of 2019 and allied matters. 9. I have perused the relevant document and material placed on record. It is relevant to note herein that the judgment of this Court in the case of Vinodbhai Shivrambhai Radhod (supra) is subsequently challenged by the State of Gujarat by way of preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 1155 of 2019 and allied matters. The said group of Letters Patent Appeal came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2019. This Court in said Letters Patent Appeal No. 1155 of 2019 and allied matters observed as under:- "10. The above tabular of service details of service of each of the workmen remained undisputed by respondents, the appellant-State herein and the record further reveal that each of the employees had undergone valid selection procedure undertaken by selection committee upon holding interview and the name of individual was called from employment exchange for the post of Class-IV in the fixed pay-scale of Rs.1350/- that service rendered by the employees are not less than 10 to 11 years and extending upto 15 to 16 years continuously and incorporation of condition No.2 in the appointment letter issued to each of the petitioners of dis-entailing employee of not claiming any future benefits in the form of permanency or regularization or parity in pay-scale with regular employees is nothing but a contract between lion and land and as addressed by Division Bench of this Court in the Writ Petition (PIL) 244 of 2014 in the case of Gujarat Rajya Anshkalin Karmachari Mandal vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. that their voice of part timers and casual labourers is too feeble and their future is also too un-certain for want of any protection of Article 311 of Constitution of India and long service tenure as semiskilled or un-skilled workers or employees either as sweepers/cleaners/water servers/ gardener/watchman etc. and appointment is mostly contingency based and work charged with little permanency attached result into social exploitation and when such oral order dated 21.8.2014 was rendered statistics reveal that more than 10,000 to 15000 such workers were deprived of even minimum of pay-scale after long years of more than 15 years of service. and appointment is mostly contingency based and work charged with little permanency attached result into social exploitation and when such oral order dated 21.8.2014 was rendered statistics reveal that more than 10,000 to 15000 such workers were deprived of even minimum of pay-scale after long years of more than 15 years of service. In para 8 of the above decision the State of Gujarat especially Finance Department was directed that all part-time workers were to be considered and paid at the same rate of remuneration prescribed per day for the employment of sweeping and cleaning work under the said notification dated 5.8.2013 and wages are to be revised accordingly and further order was passed that the State Government shall present affidavit suggesting periodic revisions that may be adopted for remuneration of such persons from time to time after 1998. 11. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, the Apex Court threadbare considered all ad-hoc and temporary workers and in similar such circumstances addressed to the issue about right of such employees who claimed wages on par with minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post to which even learned Single Judge also referred to and we would like to refer to paragraphs 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58, which reads as under: “54. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as workcharge, daily-wage, casual, ad hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. 55. 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. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. 55. 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. 57. 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. 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. 58. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the payscale (- at the lowest grade, in the regular payscale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post.” 12. The law laid down by the Apex Court as above is squarely applicable in the facts of this case and we are not inclined to accept the arguments canvassed by learned AGP that the decision laid down in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh is not applicable inasmuch as, employees in all these appeals not only rendered valuable service in community health centre at remote and tribal areas of State of Gujarat for more than six months but continued to receive instructions from superior to perform such duties beyond prescribed hours for about 11 to 16 years as the case may be, therefore, in our view ratio and law laid down in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh will apply in the facts of this case with equal force. 13. 13. In addition to above, learned Single Judge has considered other decisions of the Apex Court including that of Uma Devi (supra) which also covered an exception for those who are working with authority or establishment of State within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India for more than 10 years by holding that four conditions laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra) are fulfilled in the facts of the case namely, initial appointment of the employee was legal meaning thereby in the manner contingency and completely with scheme as contained under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that employee has put in 10 years of service or more than and continued in service when taking shelter of any courts’ order and that there existed sanctioned post. Learned Judge accordingly noticed that the State Government had passed Government Resolution dated 1.5.2007 as amended by resolution dated 16.5.2008 providing for one time regularization of all part-time/ad hoc/temporary employees who had put in 10 years or more services and the fact about and we are of the view that since establishment was in existence for years together formality of declaring the same as sanctioned would not come in the way of petitioners receiving atleast minimum of pay-scale in lowest grade-pay when their claim towards permanency and regularization is rejected by learned Single Judge. Even benefits of arrears of salary is also not granted and held to be entitled w.e.f to receive their salary namely, minimum of salary in the lowest grade-pay with that all regular employees on the same post w.e.f. 1.1.2019 and thus, rights of the employees to be permanent employees by seeking regularization is not accepted by learned Single Judge. Thus, reasoning of learned Single Judge and limited acceptance of prayer, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be termed as contrary to law. 14. Thus, reasoning of learned Single Judge and limited acceptance of prayer, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be termed as contrary to law. 14. That submission made by learned AGP based on decision rendered in the case of State of Tamil Nadu (supra) had no substance as such inasmuch as, in the above case the Apex Court in para 16 of the decision referred to the case of State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal (supra) wherein principle of equal pay for equal work qua Government employees vis-a-vis part-time and casual employees of Government run institutions was the background in which such law was laid down and it is held that part-time employees is not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against sanctioned post or there cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. No such direction is given in these cases by learned Single Judge and the only direction is about payment of minimum wages in the lowest pay-grade available to the regular employees on the same post. If the law laid down in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (supra) is considered to which , we have already made a reference, it is held that ad hoc and temporary employees have right to receive minimum of wages in the lowest pay-grade and the facts and circumstances of these appeals which emerge on record that duties discharged by the employees-original writ petitioners is akin to temporary and ad hoc-employees and nomenclature is about part-time employees but discharge of their duties with utmost sincerity and no complaint from the employer for years together deserve consideration for limited relief of grant of minimum of pay scale without benefits of permanency or regularization. We are in agreement with law laid down by this Court while dealing with Letters Patent Appeal No.107 of 2009 and Writ Petition (PIL) No.244 of 2014 in similar such facts and circumstances and Hindustan Lever (supra). 15 Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for. Appeals are merit-less and deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeals stand dismissed. No costs. 16. In view of the above, Civil Applications (For Stay) also stands dismissed." 10. 15 Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for. Appeals are merit-less and deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeals stand dismissed. No costs. 16. In view of the above, Civil Applications (For Stay) also stands dismissed." 10. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners, present petitioners are hereby directed to make appropriate detailed representation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, referring to and relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Vinodbhai Shivrambhai Radhod (supra) and the observations made in the said decision by this Court which is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. 11. In light of the said decision, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall decide the representation of the petitioners within period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation and after taking the decisions on the said representation, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall make appropriate proposal before the State Government and on receipt of the such proposal, the State Government shall decide the same and accord the approval on the said proposal after going through the proposal within two months from the date of receipt of such proposal. All these exercise to be done within period of five months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 12. For the foregoing reasons, present petitions are disposed of. Rule is made absolute Direct service is permitted. 13. In case of difficulty, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file fresh petition and the same shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. 14. It is made clear that all these observations are made prima facie and the same shall not come in way of either party, at the time of filing the fresh petition, if need so arises.