ORDER : K.R. Surana, J. Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Tapin, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 6. None appears on call for respondent no.1. 2. Alleging violation and willful disobedience of the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by this Court in WA 4/2018, this contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 3. In brief, the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are serving as Grade-IV and Grade-III employees in the Department of Power, Government of Arunachal Pradesh for over 10 to 20 years without interruption or misconduct, perform duties of comparable nature, quality, and quantity to those of regular departmental employees. Despite their lengthy unbroken service and impeccable record, the petitioners' employment has not been regularized, and they have been denied salaries equivalent to their regular counterparts. Aggrieved by this discrimination, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 55(AP)/2017, seeking regularization of their employment. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 07.02.2018. Challenging the aforementioned order dated 07.02.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 55(AP)/2017, an intra-court Writ Appeal being W.A No.04/2018 was filed. Upon hearing the parties to the writ appeal, and upon examining the records and after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court of India referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned senior Govt. advocate, this Court had directed the respondent authorities in the Department of Power to scrutinize the individual appellants' claims in the following manner- (i) Those appellants who are working against sanctioned vacant posts and have worked for a period of 10 years or more up to 10.04.2006 from the date of their joining and without the aid of any Court Order, the relief of regularization be given to such employee. (ii) If upon verification, it is found that any such appellants are not working against any sanctioned vacant posts, but are in employment and performing work of similar nature, quality and quantity as that of an equivalent regular employee, the relief of providing wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre be provided to such appellants. (iii) Further, if upon examining the individual cases, the Department finds that any of the appellants are in employment, but are not performing the similar nature, quality and nature of work as that of an equivalent regular employee, an adequate financial package be provided to such appellants. 4. The copy of the judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by this Court in WA 4/2018 was served on the respondents and other authorities on 04.01.2022. However, till the filing of this contempt petition on 23.08.2022, as the service of the petitioner have not been regularized, this contempt petition has been filed. During the pendency of this contempt petition, the respondent no.4 had filed an affidavit on 28.06.2023 to bring on record the order dated 22.06.2023, passed by the Secretary (Power) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh in compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 30.11.2021. It was also stated therein that in compliance to the order dated 30.11.2021 of this Court, the Department of Power, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh had constituted a four-member Fact-Finding Committee headed by Superintending Engineer, SO (PSO), Itanagar as its Chairman and the Committee had submitted its report on 03.02.2023. Moreover, it was stated that after the order dated 30.11.2021, the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Finance Department, E-II Branch had issued an order no. FIN/E-II/15/2010/328 dated 02.06.2023, thereby enhancing the minimum rates of wages in respect of various categories of un-skilled and skilled contingent employees/ casual workers/ labourers/ ALCs employed under Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh at rates mentioned therein w.e.f. 01.06.2023. 5. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 had filed an additional affidavit on 02.08.2023 to bring on record the Fact-Finding Committee Report dated 03.02.2023 in terms of order dated 20.07.2023 passed in this contempt petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Fact-Finding Committee report, in his opinion, was an exercise as if the Fact-Finding Committee constituted by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh vide orders dated 11.10.2022 and 14.12.2022, were sitting over in appeal against the judgment and order of this court dated 30.11.2021 and not only the said Committee given an opinion including suggestive opinions but also arrived at a conclusion that the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. of Arunachal Pradesh vide orders dated 11.10.2022 and 14.12.2022, were sitting over in appeal against the judgment and order of this court dated 30.11.2021 and not only the said Committee given an opinion including suggestive opinions but also arrived at a conclusion that the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 was not applicable to WP(C) 55/2017, and also give its suggestion of promoting casual labours into work charged category in a phased manner after subjecting them to a “trade test”. It was also submitted that instead of finding out ways and means to implement the order dated 30.11.2021 of this Court, the Committee had justified non-compliance of the said order on the basis of the financial burden and thus, suggested that the contempt proceeding was a result of lack of being attended timely which lead to judgments unfavourable to the Departments. Accordingly, it is submitted that as a clear-cut case of Contempt of Court is made out, the contempt be initiated against the respondent and appropriate orders be passed in this contempt petition to enforce the order of the Court. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 has submitted that in paragraph 12 of the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by this Court in WA 4/2018 require the Department of Power to examine the claim of the individual appellants and determine (1) as to whether any of them are working against any sanctioned vacant post; (2) as to whether they have worked for a period of 10 years or more up to 10.04.2006; (3) as to whether they were working without the aid of any Court order. Moreover, it was further provided that if all the three conditions are satisfied, paragraph 53 of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of India in Umadevi & Ors.(supra)would be applicable and they would be entitled to relief of regularization and moreover, in paragraph 13 of the said judgment, it was directed that if upon verification, it is found that any such appellants are not working against any sanctioned vacant post, but are in employment and performing work of similar nature, quality and quantity of which is equivalent to that done by a regular employee, the relief of providing wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre be provided to such appellants. It was further directed that if upon examining the individual case, the Department finds that any of the appellants are in employment, but are not performing the similar nature, quality and quantity and nature of work as that of an equivalent regular employee, the other relief provided in the judgment dated 17.01.2017 for an adequate financial package be provided to such appellants. 8. Accordingly, it is submitted that this Court had directed an Inquiry to be made and therefore, there was no violation by the respondents in undertaking the exercise by a Fact-Finding Committee and to table its report, which has been brought on record by filing additional affidavit on 02.08.2023. 9. The summary of finding as provided under Chapter-V and the conclusion under Chapter-VII of the Fact-Finding Committee report are quoted below: CHAPTER V SUMMARY OF FINDING The findings of the Committee elaborated above is summarised below to conclude our report as follows: 1. ON CASUAL POSTS: Casual Labours are not engaged against vacant post. They simply work against the number of Casual Labours requirement determined technically through Technical Sanction of the detailed Estimate. The number technically determined is the maximum Casual Labours engageable for a work appropriately sanctioned by all Administrative, Financial and Technical Competent Authorities. 2. ON WORKS CASUAL LABOURS DO: Casual Labours work in similar works as done by WC counterparts but in assistance to them. So, their works are not same in quality, quantity and not much with responsibilities as compared to WC counterparts. 3. ON CONTINUANCE UNDER AID OF COURT/TRIBUNAL: The Petitioners were not continuing in the job under the aid of any court or tribunal. 4. ON 10 YEARS CRITERIA: a. Out of 68 petitioners, only 48 are participating in the Contempt Case (C) 31 (AP)/2022. b. Only 31 out of 68 qualify the criteria of having completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. c. 8 (eight) of them got promoted to WC during the pendency of case based on Regulatory Scheme. d. 5 (Five) of them either left or expired during the pendency of the case. e. 22 (Twenty-two) of them are yet to complete 10 years. f. 2 (Two) of them were above 32 years at the time of their original enrolment. Had the post been sanctioned vacant posts and if they were to be recruited at that point of time, condonation of age would have been required. e. 22 (Twenty-two) of them are yet to complete 10 years. f. 2 (Two) of them were above 32 years at the time of their original enrolment. Had the post been sanctioned vacant posts and if they were to be recruited at that point of time, condonation of age would have been required. No order of 'condonation of age has been found. Hence, they do not qualify unless the upper age limit is condoned. 5. ON SPECIAL PACKAGE/SCHEME: Since Honourable Guwahati High Court has upheld the legality of Regulatory Scheme, we do not feel the necessity of another or adopting other packages of another department like that of the PWD. Upgraded package for the petitioner Casual Labours is also not required as the minimum wages for such Casual Labours are regularly revised and notified from time to time by the state government. CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION With the above findings we conclude that: 1. The Uma Devi Case is not applicable to the WP(C) No 55 of 2017. 2. No new package, one time or long term, for regularising Casual Labours not required in view of tested and robust Regulatory Scheme. 3. No upgraded package for Casual Labours not engaged against sanctioned post is required in view of regular revision of Minimum Wages by the State Government. 4. No any other welfare scheme for Casual Labours is also required in view of constitution of APB&CWWB by the State Government. The Board is suitably funded through a Labour of 1%. 5. If the opinion expressed above by the Committee is considered reasonable, a separate Committee may be constituted to study and suggest the Government of the framework to be first implemented in the Department of Power. Department of Power, amongst other Engineering Departments of the State, is the only one that needs a large pool of trained Human Resource to maintain the Electricity Supply System round the clock 365 days a year and most of the services to the consumers are to be delivered instantly on call. The report submitted to the Secretary to Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Power. 10. From the perusal of the said voluminous report of the Fact-Finding Committee, it is observed that the Fact-Finding Committee had arrived at a conclusion that the casual labourers were not engaged against any vacant post. The report submitted to the Secretary to Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Power. 10. From the perusal of the said voluminous report of the Fact-Finding Committee, it is observed that the Fact-Finding Committee had arrived at a conclusion that the casual labourers were not engaged against any vacant post. They did not enter into service after undergoing any recruitment process and that the casual labourers are to assist their work charged counterparts and therefore, their works are not same in quality and quantity and also not much with responsibilities as compared to work charged counterparts. 11. On a query of the Court that the Power Department engaged casual labours to assist the work charged counterparts, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 has given an example by stating that a work charged employee may be a painter and he would need the assistance of a labour for his work. Similarly, a work charged employee may be a mason and needs the assistance of a labour to do his work and accordingly, has tried to explain to the Court that the scope of work rendered by a casual labourer was different in quality and quantity than a regular work charged employee. The examples as stated, make things much clearer. 12. We take note of the fact that as per the documents annexed to the affidavit filed 28.06.2023 and additional affidavit filed on 02.08.2023, discloses that the minimum wages of contingent employee, workers, labourers including un-skilled and skilled categories has been revised from time to time and the last of such wage revision was done by order dated 29.05.2023, issued by the Principal Secretary, Finance, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, which is issued by the Finance Department, E-II Branch. 13. From the discussions above, we find that the Fact-Finding Committee, in its report, has demonstrated that the three requisite conditions for satisfying the requirement of paragraph 53 of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Umadevi & Ors. (supra) were not satisfied. Moreover, it is seen that the Govt. 13. From the discussions above, we find that the Fact-Finding Committee, in its report, has demonstrated that the three requisite conditions for satisfying the requirement of paragraph 53 of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Umadevi & Ors. (supra) were not satisfied. Moreover, it is seen that the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh has revised the minimum wages to be paid from time to time and it cannot be held that the revision of minimum wages would not amount to an adequate financial package to be provided to the petitioners, which is sufficient compliance of paragraph 13 of the order dated 30.11.2021 passed in WA 4/2018. 14. In view of the fact-finding exercise done by the competent authorities in Power Department, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed deliberate and willful violation and disobedience of the said order. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to initiate contempt proceedings in the instant matter. Accordingly, this contempt petition stands closed. 15. However, before parting with the records, it is made clear that if the petitioners are aggrieved with the report of the Fact-Finding Committee or aggrieved by the order under memo no. CED/E/CC-NABAM TAMAR/PT-FILE-2023-24/1149-55 dated 22.06.2023 issued by the Secretary (Power), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, it would be open to them to seek appropriate relief in a manner they may be so advised.