JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to pay the minimum wages to the petitioner as notified by the Government of Gujarat which is being paid to other similarly situated employees and be further pleased to direct the respondent to pay arrears thereon from the date of reinstatement of the petitioner; Amendment carried as per court’s order dated 28-2-2023 (AA) That Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to pay minimum pay-scale of the post of Assistant Teacher from the date of appointment till date of retirement with all consequential benefits; (B) Direct the respondent to pay the arrears alongwith 12% interest thereon; (C) Any other and such further relief as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice;” 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioner was working with Kodinar Municipality and her services came to be terminated and therefore, the petitioner raised industrial dispute which was decided on 27.12.2000, directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner and keep her for 5 years on temporary basis and on completion of 5 years, the petitioner be made permanent and granted consequential benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that this Award of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent Municipality by filing Special Civil Application No.2894 of 2000 before this Court and the petitioner had also filed Special Civil Application No.11098 of 2003. Both the petitions were jointly heard by this Court and vide orders dated 30.08.2005 and 05.09.2005, both the petitions were allowed by this Court holding that it was found that since the order was passed without giving an opportunity for showing cause or hearing the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained, however, the Court also kept option open for the employer to take disciplinary action. That, in the present case, neither of these two opportunities provided by the Court have been availed of, admittedly, no disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner before passing the order dated 13.09.2004. That, in the present case, neither of these two opportunities provided by the Court have been availed of, admittedly, no disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner before passing the order dated 13.09.2004. 2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.7337 of 2008, which came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2008 directing the respondent Municipality to comply with the order dated 05.09.2005 within three months. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for payment of minimum wages which is being paid to all the employees working in the respondent Municipality, whereas, the petitioner is paid only Rs.750/- which is far below the minimum rates of wages. 2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has preferred this present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the aforesaid prayers. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.T.R. Mishra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Amar Mithani, appearing on behalf of the respondent – Kodinar Municipality and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jay Trivedi, appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra has submitted that the petitioner is entitled for payment of minimum wages which is being paid to all the employees working in the respondent Municipality, whereas, the petitioner is paid only Rs.750/- which is far below the minimum rates of wages. He has submitted that the minimum rates of the wages is applicable to the local self-government as notified by the Government of Gujarat, whereas, a hyper technical issue is raised that there is no order passed by the High Court and therefore, the petitioner will not be paid minimum wages as notified by the Government of Gujarat. He has submitted that therefore, the impugned action on the part of the respondent Municipality is not only absolutely arbitrary, illegal but is also discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the respondent Nagar Palika on 01.01.1990. That, one employee namely, Nandanben Natwarlal Joshi was working as Assistant Teacher in regular pay-scale and she retired on 31.12.1989 and after her retirement, the petitioner was appointed on the said vacant, permanent post on 01.01.1990. He has further submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the respondent Nagar Palika on 01.01.1990. That, one employee namely, Nandanben Natwarlal Joshi was working as Assistant Teacher in regular pay-scale and she retired on 31.12.1989 and after her retirement, the petitioner was appointed on the said vacant, permanent post on 01.01.1990. He has further submitted that minimum qualification fixed by the Government of Gujarat for the post of Assistant Teacher in the respondent Nagar Palika is Pre-PTC Examination and the petitioner has passed the same in the year 1981-82. He has submitted that the pay-scale of the said post according to Third Pay Commission was Rs.196/232, the same was revised in Fourth Pay Commission as Rs.950/1500 and accordingly, it was again revised in Fifth Pay Commission as Rs.3050/4590 and similarly, it was again revised in Sixth Pay Commission as Rs.5200/20,200. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Mishra has submitted that though the petitioner was qualified for the said post of Assistant Teacher and the post was vacant, despite this fact the respondent was not paying the wages for the said post. The petitioner was receiving monthly salary of Rs.750/-. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition. He has submitted that at the time of hearing of this petition, this Court had passed the order on 30.01.2017 directing the petitioner to place on record minimum pay attached to the post of Assistant Teacher and therefore, the petitioner had placed Xerox copy of pay-slip of one employee namely, Joshi Rajeshkumar Vaikunthlal working as Assistant Teacher in Shree Devli Pas Center Kumar Shala, located Taluka Kodinar, at Dist. Gir Somnath. He has submitted that according to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors., reported in [2017] 1 SCC 148, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided that according to the principle of equal-pay for equal-work, the Government cannot deny to pay the wages of the post on which the employee is working. Therefore, according to the said decision the respondent Nagar Palika is under legal obligation to pay the pay-scale of the post of Assistant Teacher to the petitioner. Therefore, according to the said decision the respondent Nagar Palika is under legal obligation to pay the pay-scale of the post of Assistant Teacher to the petitioner. He has submitted that in another case of State of Punjab vs. Talwinder Singh and ors., reported in 2003 (11) SCC 776, wherein again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that equal-pay for equal- work daily-wager vis-à-vis regular employee. The employee was working as daily-wager in PWD Public Health Division, claiming same scale of pay as given to their counterparts on regular basis on the ground that they were discharging same type of works and possessing prescribed qualification. 4.2 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Mishra has referred and relied upon the decision of this Court dated 29.11.2009 in case of Vasantiben Laljibhai Pitroda & 2 others Vs. Nagar Prathmik Sikshan Samiti & 2 others, passed in Special Civil Application No.5915 of 2000 with Special Civil Application No.12777 of 2007 and emphasized upon the observations made in paragraphs 10 and 11, which read as under : “10. The Supreme Court after considering the decision of the Constitution Bench rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , (wherein the Apex Court has carved out an exception that all the irregular employees who have worked on an unsanctioned post shall be regularized in service after completion of ten years of service) has held that the daily wagers, contractual employees, ad- hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, and the like are entitled to minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), which is extended to the regular teacher. The cases of the petitioners stand on better traction to that of daily wagers, casual or contractual employees. The respondents are beneficiaries of their services of 25 years and more. They have been utilizing their service as regular teachers, though they were appointed on temporary basis, hence they cannot be denied the minimum of the pay scale which is extended to the regular teachers. 11. On the bedrock of the afore-noted observation, the respondents are hereby directed to pay the benefits of the minimum of the pay- scale (at lowest grade) in the regular pay-scale to the petitioners which are granted to the regular employee holding the same post. 11. On the bedrock of the afore-noted observation, the respondents are hereby directed to pay the benefits of the minimum of the pay- scale (at lowest grade) in the regular pay-scale to the petitioners which are granted to the regular employee holding the same post. It is further directed that the amount which is already paid in compliance of the interim order shall be adjusted towards the final payment. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the respondent authorities preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of the order of this Court. Accordingly, the retiral benefits of the petitioner shall also be paid if they are not paid and the same shall be revised accordingly. It will be open for the respondent authorities to pay the aforesaid amount in installments. It is further specified that their pension/retiral benefits shall be fixed and paid as per the directions issued by this Court on the basis of lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale.” 4.3 Learned advocate Mr.Mishra has also referred and relied upon the decision dated 26.08.2010 in case of Shree Yogkshem Foundation for Human Dignity Vs. State of Gujarat & 4 Others, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.2492 of 2009, and submitted that in paragraph 3 onwards, the Division Bench has observed that the minimum wages revised by the State Government in the Cadre of Class-III & IV employees which was revised from Rs.1500/- to Rs.3500/- and then further to Rs.4500/- and has clearly held that atleast the petitioner is entitled for the revised pay-scale which is revised time and again by the State Government. 4.4 Learned advocate Mr.Mishra has also referred and relied upon the decision dated 22.10.2019 in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Bahadur Hoshi Kotwal, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1748 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No.19042 of 2017, wherein, in paragraph 6, it has been observed and held as under : “6. 4.4 Learned advocate Mr.Mishra has also referred and relied upon the decision dated 22.10.2019 in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Bahadur Hoshi Kotwal, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1748 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No.19042 of 2017, wherein, in paragraph 6, it has been observed and held as under : “6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the order at length passed by the learned Single Judge, prima facie, we are of the opinion that while passing the order, the learned Single Judge has construed and considered the relevant provisions from Pension Rules, and has also considered the fact that a period of 33 years is passed on by the respondent and thereto on pensionary establishment, we also see that the learned Single Judge has given effect to Rule 25 of Pension Rules and has categorically observed that considering the effect of such provisions contained under the Rules, since, the respondent was serving in grantinaid institute, and his salary was being paid from grantinaid made available to the College and was also given benefits of 4th, 5th and 6th Pay recommendations, from time to time, services put up by the respondent was qualifying service, amenable for the pension. As a result of this, when minutely the learned Single Judge has considered the stand of both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that no error appears to have been committed and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge seem to be accurate and in consonance with the proposition of law and the statutory provisions. That being so, even if another view is possible, the same would not be justiciable in substituting the conclusion in any form. Resultantly, we see no merit in the appeal.” 4.5 Learned advocate Mr.Mishra has therefore, urged that the petitioner is entitled for minimum time scale and she is entitled for all the consequential benefits including benefits of gratuity, provident fund and other retiral dues and as the petitioner has completed almost qualifying service for the purpose of pension, she is also entitled to get the benefits of pension. He has therefore, urged that the present petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to pay all the retiral dues to the petitioner. 5. He has therefore, urged that the present petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to pay all the retiral dues to the petitioner. 5. As against that, the learned advocate Mr.Amar Mithani appearing on behalf of the respondent – Municipality has objected the present petition mainly on three counts, firstly, that the petitioner was not appointed after undergoing due selection process nor through regular mode of recruitment process, secondly, the petitioner was an Ad-hoc employee to serve in the Bal Mandir as an Assistant Bal Mandir Teacher only from 12 to 4 p.m. and was appointed on fixed/lump sum payment of Rs.650/- per month, and thirdly, the petitioner has not continuously-regularly served the respondent authority as she had stopped to attend the Bal Mandir run by the respondent Municipality from 2016 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefits as prayed for in the present petition. Referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent Municipality, learned advocate Mr.Mithani has submitted that recently, the State Government has directed the respondent Municipality under Government Resolution dated 16.02.2006 to make appointment on sanctioned vacant post of Establishment Set up after prior sanction of the Finance Department only and therefore, as the petitioner was not appointed by getting prior sanction from the Director of Municipality, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Mithani has further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as part-time daily-wager and she was an Ad-hoc appointee, she was not a regularly selected employee and she was working as a part-time Assistant Teacher in the Bal Mandir run by the respondent Municipality and therefore, she is not entitled to get even the minimum wages as her working hours were limited from 12 to 4 p.m. and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits and hence, the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. The controversy involved in the present petition is to the effect that, since the petitioner was serving as Assistant Teacher in Bal Mandir run by Kodinar Municipality from 01.01.1990 and till 2016, she was working with the respondent Municipality and therefore, she is entitled to get the benefits as prayed for in the present petition and even the petitioner was not paid minimum wages prescribed by the State government till the date she stopped to attend the Bal Mandir and therefore, whether the petitioner is entitled to get such benefits or not. It is the case of the petitioner that the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Employee Exchange in 1990 and on the basis of that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 01.01.1990 and till the date of her first termination, she was continuously working at the post of Assistant Teacher. Even after first termination, the order of termination came to be quashed and set aside in the first round of litigation. Then again, the order of termination came to be passed by the respondent Municipality and the second order of termination also came to be challenged before this Court and this Court allowed the said petition and the order of termination was quashed and set aside. The said order reached finality as the same was not further challenged by either side before higher forum and therefore, considering the last order passed by this Court in 2005, the petitioner has thereafter further worked for almost more than 11 years i.e. upto 2016 and in 2016 she stopped attending the Bal Mandir run by Kodinar Municipality. Even the petitioner was paid fixed salary of Rs.750/- which is less than the minimum wages prevailing at that point of time and therefore, the petitioner has time and again requested the respondent to pay atleast minimum wages and revise the pay in comparison to other teachers. But all these representations were in vain and not given any response thereto and therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. Pending the petition, the petitioner has stopped attending the Bal Mandir run by Kodinar Municipality in 2016. But all these representations were in vain and not given any response thereto and therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. Pending the petition, the petitioner has stopped attending the Bal Mandir run by Kodinar Municipality in 2016. 6.1 With regard to the facts emerging in the present petition, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher from 01.01.2009 in the Bal Mandir run by respondent Kodinar Nagar Palika which was subsequently converted into Kodinar Municipality. It is also an undisputed fact that till 2001 at the time of first termination order, the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher and the first termination order came to be challenged before this Court by way of preferring Special Civil Application No.2122 of 2002, which came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2002. It is also an undisputed fact that after receipt of first termination order, again the service of the petitioner came to be terminated by the respondent in 2002 and thereafter, again the petitioner had preferred second petition before this Court. It is also an undisputed fact that on the basis of the said order passed by this Court in the year 2005, the petitioner came to be reinstated in service and the petitioner was also ordered to pay all the consequential reliefs. Even thereafter also, the petitioner was not paid regular salary and was not treated as regular teacher and was paid minimum wages of Rs.750/- only as fixed salary and therefore, the petitioner again approached this Court in 2005 and in 2005, this Court while allowing the petition preferred by the present petitioner, directed the respondent to pay all the consequential benefits within three months from the date of order, however, till date of filing of the present petition, the petitioner was not paid regular salary or the wages in comparison to other teachers and was paid fixed salary of only Rs.750/-, for which the petitioner has raised grievance in the present petition. 6.2 Considering the facts of the case and considering the above referred decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court I am of the opinion that considering the undisputed fact as observed above that the petitioner was appointed on 01.01.1990 and till the date of her last attending the Bal Mandir run by the respondent Kodinar Municipality in the year 2016 she has worked with the respondent Municipality though on two occasions, there was artificial break given by the respondent Municipality by way of termination but subsequently both the termination orders came to be quashed and set aside by this Court and therefore, her services can be considered as regular from 01.01.1990 till 2016. Considering the fact that the respondents have considered as daily-wager and given a minimum fixed salary of Rs.750/- is absolutely illegal, unjust and arbitrary and therefore, the action of the respondent Municipality deserves to be quashed and aside and the present petition deserves to be partly allowed. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby partly allowed. The respondent Kodinar Municipality is hereby directed to pay all the consequential benefits tot he petitioner considering the total length of her service from 01.01.1990 till 2016, since in between the termination orders were challenged before this Court and the same were quashed and set aside and therefore, considering her total length of service of more than 26 years, the petitioner is entitled to get the minimum time scale which is time and again revised by the State government and accordingly, the respondent Kodinar Municipality is to recalculate all the benefits and pay all the benefits to the petitioner from the date of her original appointment i.e. from 01.01.1990 till 2016 and also pay other benefits including gratuity, leave encashment and/or other benefits which are due and payable to the petitioner. The amount of gratuity is carrying statutory interest as provided under the statute and the same is to be paid with interest by the respondent Municipality. The respondent Municipality is directed to pay all the benefits due and payable to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount of gratuity is carrying statutory interest as provided under the statute and the same is to be paid with interest by the respondent Municipality. The respondent Municipality is directed to pay all the benefits due and payable to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7.1 So far as the benefits of pension are concerned, as the petitioner has stopped attending the Bal Madir run by respondent Municipality in the year 2016 prior to her attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2019 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefits and in that circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any pension from the respondent Municipality. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. 8. In view of disposal of the main matter, the pending civil application also stands disposed of.