ORDER : M.NAGAPRASANNA, J. 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer: A. Issue a Writ or a direction or an appropriate order in the nature of mandamus directing the 2 nd respondent to make payment of 6 months minimum wages difference amount to the present petitioners as per the representation dated 08.10.2025 vide Annexure-S to the writ petition. B. Issue a Writ or a direction or an appropriate order in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the Petitioners as cost of the proceedings. C. Issue any other order or directions and grant such other reliefs this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners are similarly placed to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.106282 of 2024. This Court considering the orders that are passed by the Co-ordinate Benches had quashed the endorsement and directed payment of difference of minimum wages. The order of this Court reads as follows: “3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows: The petitioner is appointed as a Library Supervisor in Unchalli Gram Panchayat and has rendered more than 30 years of service as on date. The State Government issued a communication to the respondent No.3 clarifying that Library Supervisors are considered as skilled labourers and therefore would become eligible for payment of minimum wages in terms of the Schedule of minimum wages issued by the State Government from time to time. The Minimum Wages Authority, Kalaburgi, passes an order directing the respondent to make payment of difference of six months in minimum wages to Library Supervisors working in Jevargi Taluka, Kalaburgi District. 4. This is said to have been challenged by the State before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburgi Bench, Kalaburgi, in Writ Petition No.20264/2015. The Writ Petition comes to be dismissed. It is later, the State Government is said to have passed an order making payment of six months of difference to the Library Supervisors working at Kalaburgi. The petitioner then submits a representation seeking the same relief and nonconsideration of the representation, led the petitioner to this Court in Writ Petition No.100575/2021, in which, the petitioner along with others. The said Writ Petition comes to be allowed by the following order: “5. The petitioner then submits a representation seeking the same relief and nonconsideration of the representation, led the petitioner to this Court in Writ Petition No.100575/2021, in which, the petitioner along with others. The said Writ Petition comes to be allowed by the following order: “5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been working as Library Supervisor in various Gram Panchayats of Uttara Kannada District for more than twenty years. The Labour Court at Kalaburagi has held that the Assistant Supervisors working in various Gram Pachayat in Kalaburagi District are entitled for payment of six months difference amount of minimum wages. It is also not in dispute that petitioners are also working on par with other government servants as per Annexure-D. The government by its order dated 9.8.2010 vide Annexure-D has held that the Library Supervisors are entitled for enhancement of honorarium on par with other government servants. Hence, it is incumbent on the part of respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 25.11.2020 vide Annexures-J to J59 and pass appropriate order. Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of directing respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the representations dated 25.11.2020 at Annexures-J to J59 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 5. A direction was issued to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. This resulted in an endorsement dated 08.10.2021. The said endorsement is called in question by the present petitioner in Writ Petition No.100630/2022. The Co-ordinate Bench disposes the said petition by the following observations: “6. The material on record would go to show that the last notification that was issued by the State Government extending the benefits of payment of minimum wages even to the library supervisors working in Gram Panchayat Libraries and Zilla Panchayat Libraries was on 05.08.2016. The petitioner has submitted his representation seeking payment of difference amount on the ground that the minimum wages fixed by the State Government was not paid to him. The said representation was made on 19.11.2020, by then the notification dated 05.08.2016 was already withdrawn by the State Government vide notification dated 04.09.2017. The petitioner has submitted his representation seeking payment of difference amount on the ground that the minimum wages fixed by the State Government was not paid to him. The said representation was made on 19.11.2020, by then the notification dated 05.08.2016 was already withdrawn by the State Government vide notification dated 04.09.2017. The correctness of issuing of notification dated 04.09.2017 had fallen for consideration before this Court in WP No.22420/2017 which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 24.04.2022. In the said writ petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the notification dated 04.09.2017 issued by the State Government withdrawing its earlier final notification dated 05.08.2016, on the ground that the notification dated 04.09.2017 was issued without proper and valid reasons as required in law. However, liberty was reserved in favour of the respondents to issue/ pass appropriate orders/directions/notification etc., in accordance with law. Since the notification dated 04.09.2017 issued by the State Government withdrawing its earlier final notification dated 05.08.2016 has been quashed by this Court in WP No.22420/2017, the impugned endorsement Annexure-L which has been issued by the State Government placing reliance on its notification dated 04.09.2017, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-L dated 08.10.2021 issued by the 1st respondent is quashed and the respondent Nos.1 and 2/Competent Authority are directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner afresh in the light of the orders passed by this Court in WP No.100575/2021 disposed of on 15.03.2021 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously, but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. A direction was issued to respondent No.2 to reconsider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the order passed in the afore-quoted Writ Petition and necessary orders to be passed within three months. What comes about is the impugned endorsement dated 06.08.2024, which is in verbatim similar to the endorsement that was earlier quashed in Writ Petition No.100630/2022. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is similarly situated to the Library Supervisor, who is granted the same benefit in Jevaragi Taluk, Kalaburgi District. The petitioner has been discriminated by the State in making the benefit applicable from prospective date. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is similarly situated to the Library Supervisor, who is granted the same benefit in Jevaragi Taluk, Kalaburgi District. The petitioner has been discriminated by the State in making the benefit applicable from prospective date. Learned counsel submits the notification aforesaid issued in the year 2011 comes to be withdrawn by the State. The withdrawal was challenged and the withdrawal of the said notification is quashed. Therefore, what would prevail now is 2011 notification. In terms of which, the petitioner is entitled to minimum wages from the date of the notification. Learned counsel would submit that the State could not have denied payment of the petitioner like the payments made in Kalaburgi District. 8. Per contra, learned AGA would submit that the endorsement so issued is in tune with law. Therefore it should not merit any interference at the hands of this Court. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The orders quoted hereinabove have resulted in the impugned endorsement. A perusal at the endorsement that stood quashed by an order of this Court i.e., dated 08.10.2021, in juxtaposition with the impugned endorsement dated 06.08.2024 would unmistakably indicate that they are verbatim similar. The same defence is now but up to deny the petitioner the difference of minimum wages between 21.02.2011 and 21.08.2011 for a period of six months. 10. It is necessary to notice that the State had challenged the minimum wages that is granted for a period of six months before this Court in Writ Petition No.100926/2022. The Coordinate Bench dismissing the Writ petition has observed as follows: 4. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Learned AGA appearing for the petitioners would contend that the writ petition as well as the writ appeal have been decided without hearing the contention of the petitioner-State. This Court is unable to accept the said contention. It is also pointed out before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that the State has made payment in favour of some of the claimants who had the benefit of the order dated 12.06.2013 in Application No.53/2012. This being the position, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the writ petition. It is also pointed out before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that the State has made payment in favour of some of the claimants who had the benefit of the order dated 12.06.2013 in Application No.53/2012. This being the position, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the writ petition. The contention that the State was not properly heard before passing the orders in Writ Petition No.202674/2015 cannot be accepted. This order is confirmed by the Division Bench as well as in Writ Appeal no.200369/2015. 6. In the impugned order reference is made to the order passed by the coordinate bench as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of Kalburgi Bench in writ appeal No.200369/2015. And based on said orders the impugned order is passed.” 11. The Coordinate Bench observes that the petitioner therein was entitled to the claim as was granted in Kalaburgi District. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed, on that sole score and becomes entitled to six months difference that is sought for, as a prayer, in the representation. 12. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to observe that the State has repeated the same endorsement despite it being quashed to get over the contempt, such actions needs to be deprecated, as it would amount to a contempt on the face of it, as repeating the same endorsements that are quashed by this Court. This Court is holding its hands in not referring the matter to the contempt Court solely on the score that the petitioner is wanting his six months difference, in minimum wages. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following : ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The endorsement dated 06.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-M stands quashed. (iii) Mandamus issues to the respondents to make payment of six months minimum wages difference as is being paid to Library Supervisor at Kalaburgi District between 21.02.2021 and 21.08.2011 within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if not earlier. Ordered accordingly.” 3. The next person is before the Court, yet again. The petitioner individually is back before this Court notwithstanding the fact that he was one of the petitioners in the conglomeration of petitioners which decided minimum wages to be granted to those petitioners. 4. Ordered accordingly.” 3. The next person is before the Court, yet again. The petitioner individually is back before this Court notwithstanding the fact that he was one of the petitioners in the conglomeration of petitioners which decided minimum wages to be granted to those petitioners. 4. The learned HCGP would seek to defend the action on the score that the petitioner has not approached this Court and this Court has not directed payment of minimum wages. The said submission on the face of it is untenable. 5. It is not the law that every person, who is similarly placed, should keep knocking at the doors of this Court. It is the State's duty that if they are entitled to a relief that is granted to a similarly situated person, every person need not be driven to the Court. It is the settled principle of law. 6. In that light the State is driving every person to come before this Court, and seek minimum wages of Rs.19,400/-time and again, therefore, the State must be milked with costs for driving 94 petitioners. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The petition is thus allowed ii. Mandamus issues to the respondent-State to pay the amount as sought for in terms of representation dated 08.10.2025 without brooking any further delay, with costs of litigation at Rs.2,000/- per per petitioner. iii. In the event the State would not pay the amount to these petitioners, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the costs gets enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per petitioner. Ordered accordingly.