JUDGMENT : BATTU DEVANAND, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the order, dated 17.11.2022 in W.P.No.2583 of 2020, passed by the learned Single Judge. 2 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3 . The parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition, for the sake of convenience. 4 . S ubmissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners: (a) The case of the Writ Petitioners is that as per the resolution passed by the Nandikotkur Grampanchayat, the petitioners were appointed as Water Works, Electricians, Operators etc., in the Nandikotkur Grampanchayat and they have been continuously working for more than ten years without any remarks from the higher authorities. In view of the G.O.Ms.No.577, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Elec.I) Department, dated 28.12.2011, the services of the petitioners were taken over by the respondent No.4/Nandikotkur Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, vide proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.252, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (G2) Department, dated 06.09.2019, the respondent No.4/Nandikotkur Gram Panchayat had upgraded to Nandikotkur Municipality. Thereafter also, the petitioners are working in the same office. Initially, the petitioners were appointed through the process of selection but subsequently, they are being treated as contract workers by the respondent No.4/Municipality. As the petitioners are continuing for several years on contract basis, they requested the respondents to extend the benefit of payment of time scale in the light of the Government Orders issued time to time particularly in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.142, Finance (HR.I-Plg. & Policy) Department, dated 27.08.2018. As their request was not considered, they approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition No.2583 of 2020. A learned Single Judge, by order, dated 17.11.2022, allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents to grant minimum time scale with annual grade increments to the petitioners, on par with the regular employees, discharging duties corresponding to the respective posts in Gram Panchayat. 5 . Aggrieved by the same, the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Krishna District, preferred the present Appeal. 6. 5 . Aggrieved by the same, the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Krishna District, preferred the present Appeal. 6. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent/s: (a) Basing on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is contended that the petitioners are not entitled for minimum time scale as per G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018, and they are not part time employees to extend minimum pay in RPS, 2015 to bring them first time into this scheme prescribed as per G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018. (b) Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are engaged on contract basis as such, they would not fall under any of the categories mentioned in the G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018. The petitioners are migrated to The Andhra Pradesh Corporation for Outsourced Services [in short ‘the APCOS’] for outsourcing service and their services were taken over by the APCOS and payments are made by them and as such, the petitioners are not fall under any category of clause (4) of the G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018 and they are not entitled for the minimum time scale. (c) Learned counsel further contends that the respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018 in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh , AIR 2006 SC 5176 wherein a condition was imposed that those who were appointed prior to 25.11.1993 alone are eligible for the time scale of pay. In view of the same, the order of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable under law and sought to set-aside the same by allowing the Writ Appeal. 7 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Writ Petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working on contract basis for more than 10 years and as such, they are entitled for the benefit provided under G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018 and there was no condition imposed in the judgment of the Apex Court. Accordingly, he would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge is reasonable and in accordance with law and there are no grounds to interfere into the same and accordingly, sought to dismiss the Writ Appeal. 8 . It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners are working on contract basis in the respondent No.4/Nagar Panchayat much prior to the upgradation of Gram Panchayat to Municipality. 8 . It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners are working on contract basis in the respondent No.4/Nagar Panchayat much prior to the upgradation of Gram Panchayat to Municipality. But the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018 is not applicable to the petitioners as they were not working as contract workers prior to the cut off date i.e., 25.11.1993 and therefore, the benefit of payment of timescale cannot be extended. 9 . For proper adjudication of the issue involved in the present case, it is desirable to look into the relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018, which is extracted herein under: “2. The issue of extension of remuneration equivalent to the minimum of the time scale in the revised pay scales of 2015 to the Full-time/NMR/Daily wages/Consolidated Pay/Part-time employees who were appointed before the cut-off date i.e., 25.11.1993 has been entrusted to the Group of Ministers Committee. The Group of Ministers Committee in its meeting held on 11.06.2018 have extensive discussions on extension of revised pay scales to the Part Time/Full time employees working in various Government Departments in the State. In the discussions, the GoM has kept in mind the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013, dated 26.10.2016 for allowing the pay scales to the said employees. 3. The Group of Ministers have recommended the following:- (i) For those already drawing minimum pay + DA in RPS, 2010 in the State, to extend the minimum pay + DA in the revised pay scales, 2015. (ii) For those coming into this scheme for the first time like the part-time employees who were appointed prior to 25.11.1993 and working in various government departments in the State to extend minimum pay in RPS 2015 as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013, dated 26.10.2016.” 10 . On a bare perusal of the above, it appears that the Government has decided to extend minimum pay in RPS, 2015 as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013, dated 26.10.2016 to the employees, who are working as Full-time/NMR/Daily wages/Consolidated Pay/Part-time employees, and who were appointed before the cut-off date i.e., 25.11.1993. 11 . On a bare perusal of the above, it appears that the Government has decided to extend minimum pay in RPS, 2015 as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013, dated 26.10.2016 to the employees, who are working as Full-time/NMR/Daily wages/Consolidated Pay/Part-time employees, and who were appointed before the cut-off date i.e., 25.11.1993. 11 . Reasons and Findings: (a) The sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State is that, in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, the Writ Petitioners are not entitled for the benefit extended under G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018 as they were not working as contract workers prior to the cut off date i.e. 25.11.1993. (b) As per the G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018, the Government while agreeing with the recommendations of the Committee of group of the Ministers, decided to extend minimum pay in RPS, 2015 for those coming into this scheme for the first time like the part time employees, who are appointed prior to 25.11.1993 and working in various Government Departments, in the State. (c) Admittedly, the Writ Petitioners were appointed by respondent No.4/Nandikotkur Gram Panchayat, and have been in continuous service even after the respondent No.4 upgraded to Municipality. The learned Single Judge has categorically held that the Apex Court did not impose any condition that only those appointed prior to 25.11.1993 would be eligible for the minimum of the time-scale. (d) In the present case on hand, there is no doubt that the petitioners are entitled for the time scale and as such, to the extent of direction of the learned Single Judge to grant minimum of pay scale to the petitioners cannot be find fault. The said direction is in accordance with the Government Order. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Writ Petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the minimum pay scale in terms of the Government decision in the said G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018. 12 . In view of the above, we find no merits in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.