Judgment : S. Chandrashekhar, J : 1. In this writ petition, thirteen retrenched employees of the Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation who were appointed in the Government Department on contract basis are seeking the benefits of revised pay scales under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998 and other service-linked benefits. For claiming such benefits, they have challenged the conditions under clause 7 and clause 10 under the Circular dated 24 th December 1994 on the ground that such conditions are in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have prayed that :- “ i by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to pay increments to the petitioners from the date of their appointment with all consequential benefits. ii by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed revise the pay scale of the petitioners under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998 with all consequential benefits. iii By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Rule 2(ii)(c) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998 and Clause 7 and 10 of the circular dated 24.12.1994 (Annex.1) be declared illegal and be struck down and it may be declared that employees appointed on contract basis are entitled to get benefit of revision of pay scales and other benefits of as are admissible to regular government employees with all consequential benefits. iv By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to grant benefit of GPF and State Insurance to the petitioners. v by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the undertaking obtained by the respondents be declared unconscionable as being opposed to public policy. vi Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. vii Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. The petitioners were employed under the Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation as Machine Operators and posted at the unit of the Corporation at Churu. They were confirmed in service on different dates between 05 th February 1976 (Dalam Chand Soni) to 01 st April 1983 (Keshar Dev Saini and Bal Kishan Sharma). The petitioners were employed under the Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation as Machine Operators and posted at the unit of the Corporation at Churu. They were confirmed in service on different dates between 05 th February 1976 (Dalam Chand Soni) to 01 st April 1983 (Keshar Dev Saini and Bal Kishan Sharma). Other petitioners were confirmed in service in the year 1977, except Mohan Lal Soni who was confirmed in service with effect from 29 th September 1980. In course of time, the Corporation’s unit at Churu suffered the order of closure of the mill and the petitioners were retrenched from service on 30 th November 1994. Soon thereafter, the guidelines for engagement of the retrenched employees of Public Sector Undertakings on contract were issued on 24 th December 1994 by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan. Such guidelines were issued by the Government of Rajasthan pursuant to the decision of the State Bureau of Public Enterprises Department that the retrenched employees of Public Sector Undertakings may be engaged as far as possible in State Government Departments on contract basis. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners were appointed on contract basis under Health Department in the district of Churu by an Office Order dated 22 nd April 1995 issued under the signature of the Chief Medical and Health Officer at Ratangarh, Churu and were posted at different places as indicated in the Office Order dated 28 th April 1995. The petitioners have produced a copy of the Office Order dated 26 th May 1995 which reveals that Jagdish Prasad Deora, Satya Narain Soni, Dalamchand Soni and Chagan Lal Sharma were granted pay scale of Rs.730-1250/- and the pay of other petitioners was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.700-865/-. By the Office Order dated 26 th May 1995, petitioners were provided the following emoluments :- “Government of Rajasthan Office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer Ratangarh, (District Churu) S.No. RJ/95/1339 Dated-26.05.1995 ORDER Vide this Office Order No. RJ/Niyu/95/1057 dated 22.04.95 and No.1098 dated 28.04.95 the following persons have been appointed against the post of Class IV employees in this Department, approval is given to withdrawal of their salary from the date of their appointment in the following pay scale:- S.No. Name of Employees Place of Posting Pay Scale Basic Pay 1. Shri Jagdish Prasad Deora Primary Health Center Jaitsisar 730-1250 880 + other allowances approved by the State Government 2. Shri Jagdish Prasad Deora Primary Health Center Jaitsisar 730-1250 880 + other allowances approved by the State Government 2. Shri Satya Narain Soni Primary Health Center Dadrewa 730-1250 880 + other allowances approved by the State Government 3 Shri Dalamchand Soni Primary Health CenterJodi 730-1250 880 + other allowances approved by the State Government 4 Shri Chagan Lal Primary Health Center Punrasar 730-1250 880 + other allowances approved by the State Government Shri Ghasi Ram Sharma Primary Health Center Gopalpura 700-865 810 + other allowances approved by the State Government Shri Peeru Khan Primary Health Center Baghera 700-865 780 + other allowances approved by the State Government Shri Hari Ram Primary Health Center Sirsala 700-865 810 + other allowances approved by the State Government Shri Lalchand Prajapat Primary Health Center Shimla 700-865 810 + other allowances approved by the State Government 9. Shri Bhanwar Lal Soni Primary Health Center Vinasar 700-865 800 + other allowances approved by the State Government 10. Shri Mustaq Khan Primary Health Center Digga 700-865 780 + other allowances approved by the State Government 11. Shri Satyanarain Primary Health Center Jasrasar 700-865 800 + other allowances approved by the State Government 12. Shri Om Prakash Prajapat Primary Health Center Ghaghu 700-865 800 + other allowances approved by the State Government 13. Shri keshar Dev Primary Health Center Ghanothi Badi 700-865 790 + other allowances approved by the State Government 14. Shri Balkrishna Sharma Primary Health Center Vaay 700-865 790 + other allowances approved by the State Government 15. Shri Mohanlal Soni Primary Health Center Sakhu 700-865 700 + other allowances approved by the State Government Sd- Chief Medical & Health Officer, Ratangarh, Churu 3. However, the order of pay fixation dated 26 th May 1995 was superseded by an Office Order dated 09 th September 1996 whereunder the emoluments to be paid to the petitioners included Basic Pay, fixed amount of Dearness Allowance and Medical Allowance of Rs.50/- per month. A direction to the effect of recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioners was also contained in the Office Order dated 09 th September 1996. A direction to the effect of recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioners was also contained in the Office Order dated 09 th September 1996. Aggrieved by the drastic change in the service conditions and the proposed recovery of excess amount, the petitioners approached the writ Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4364 of 1996 inter alia seeking the following reliefs :- “(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 9.9.1996 [Annexure/6] may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed with all consequential benefits to the petitioners. The respondents may be directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioners in pursuance of the order dated 9.9.1996. (b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the conditions No.5 and 7 of the order dated 24.12.1994 be declared illegal and struck down and the respondents be directed to treat the petitioners as regular Govt. employees with entitlement to all benefits which are admissible to other Govt. employees and the undertakings obtained from the petitioners to be bound by unreasonable terms pertaining to emoluments and contractual nature of employment be also declared illegal.” 4. Holding that the conditions under the Circular dated 24 th December 1994 were consciously accepted by the petitioners and it would be a case of contractual injury if they felt that they have suffered any injury, the writ petition was dismissed on 04 th December 1996. Against the writ Court’s decision to negate the prayer made by the petitioners to treat them as regular government employee and upholding the order dated 09 th September 1996, the petitioners along with Jagdish Prasad Deora filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.21 of 1997 under section 18 of the RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ORDINANCE , 1949. During pendency of the Special Appeal, an amendment was carried out in the writ petition to challenge the order dated 09 th March 2000 by which the petitioners were intimated that at the end of five years’ period their services would stand terminated. This Special Appeal was allowed to the extent that the order dated 09 th September 1996 was quashed by the Division Bench. In its judgment dated 14 th March 2000, the Division Bench of this Court found arbitrariness in the action of the respondents in unilaterally withdrawing the benefits granted to the petitioners in the Office Order dated 22 nd April 1995. In its judgment dated 14 th March 2000, the Division Bench of this Court found arbitrariness in the action of the respondents in unilaterally withdrawing the benefits granted to the petitioners in the Office Order dated 22 nd April 1995. This Court further observed that the State Government as an employer was under obligation to act fairly and without any trails of arbitrariness and unreasonableness whether the appointment was offered under the Rules or under the contract. The order dated 14 th March 2000 passed by the Division Bench to this effect was challenged by the State of Rajasthan before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.2221 of 2001 and the same has been dismissed by an order dated 08 th October 2001. In the meantime, the petitioners had laid a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging non-compliance of the direction issued by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.21 of 1997. The said contempt case was disposed of in light of the stand taken by the respondents that necessary order for payment of arrears of allowances was passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Medical and Health. However, a liberty was reserved with the petitioners to pursue their remedy for redressal of their grievance that increments were not paid to them and the quantification of the arrears of allowance was not correct. 5. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998 must be held applicable in case of the petitioners as they were offered appointment in the pay scale of Class IV employees and the competent authority passed an order of fixation of pay after they tendered joining and were employed at different places. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further contended that the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES , 1951 are also applicable and the petitioners are entitled to draw increments and other allowances at par with other employees of the State Government, inasmuch as, the applicability of the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES , 1951 in relation to the retrenched employees who were offered employment on contract basis was not excluded in the Circular dated 24 th December 1994. The submission of Mr. The submission of Mr. M.S. Singhvi, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners who were appointed against the post of Class IV employees and discharged the same and similar duties as assigned to other Class IV employees and having been granted various service-linked benefits must be held entitled to seek revision in the pay scale, General Provident Fund, State Insurance and increments as admissible to the other government employees. The learned senior counsel lastly submitted that the offer of appointment on contract basis was accepted by the petitioners under coercion and they had no other option but to fill up the application form for their employment which contained the formatted undertaking. 6. Much emphasis was laid by Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, the learned Additional Advocate General on the undertakings signed by the writ petitioners which was framed in the following terms :- “The undersigned is willing to accept the contractual engagement in State Government subsequent to my retrenchment in pursuance of the agreed terms and conditions given in the Government Circular No.FS (1) DOP/P-11/74 dated 24 th December 1994 for engagement of retrenched employees of State Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises in the Government. I hereby agree and undertake to abide by the said terms of contractual engagement for retrenched employees of PSUs. This undertaking from part of the application form for employment of contract engagement which was required to be filled up by the retrenched employees of the State Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises. At the time when the writ petitioners suffered retrenchment, they had put in 20 years of service except one.” 7. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that the petitioners who accepted the contractual employment without any protest must be held bound by the conditions of service laid down under the Circular dated 24 th December 1994. The learned Additional Advocate General raised a serious objection to the prayer seeking revised pay scale on the ground that a challenge laid to clauses 5 and 7 in the previous writ proceeding had failed and no relief in this regard was granted by the Court. It is further submitted that the process of selection of the regular employees and contractual employees like the petitioners is different and there being logical differentiation in the service conditions of both category of the employees, the petitioners cannot be granted any relief in the present proceeding. It is further submitted that the process of selection of the regular employees and contractual employees like the petitioners is different and there being logical differentiation in the service conditions of both category of the employees, the petitioners cannot be granted any relief in the present proceeding. It is contended that the scope of judicial review in case of pay parity is very limited and “equal pay for equal work” is not a fundamental right (refer, “State of Madhya Pradesh v. R.D. Sharma & Anr.” , (2022) 13 SCC 320 ). In the context of pay parity, the learned Additional Advocate General further submitted with reference to the decision in “Dr. K.M. Sharma & Ors. v. State of Chattisgargh & Ors.” , (2022) 11 SCC 436 that the persons appointed under different Rules cannot claim parity in pay scales, particularly, when they were appointed under different modes of selection. The learned Additional Advocate General also referred to the decision in “Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. & Anr. v. Balbir Kumar Walia & Ors.”, (2021) 8 SCC 784 and “Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru v. Gujarat Water Supply and Sewarage Board and Ors.” , (2021) 19 SCC 128 and submitted that the factors to be considered for revision in pay scale are missing in the case of the petitioners. 8. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998 came into force with effect from 1 st day of September 1996 except where otherwise specifically provided. Rule (ii) enumerates the persons to whom the Revised Pay Scales Rules shall not apply. There are eight specific class of persons including the persons employed on contract who are made ineligible to seek benefits under the Revised Pay Scales Rules. The respondents have taken a stand that the petitioners who were employed on contract cannot seek revision in pay scales in view of specific exclusion under clause (c) to Rule 2(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998. Besides that the validity of clause (c) is under challenge in the present proceeding, Mr. The respondents have taken a stand that the petitioners who were employed on contract cannot seek revision in pay scales in view of specific exclusion under clause (c) to Rule 2(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998. Besides that the validity of clause (c) is under challenge in the present proceeding, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the petitioners laid stress on the expression “except when the contract provides otherwise” and submitted that the appointment letter dated 22 nd April 1995 did not stipulate and put a condition that the retrenched writ petitioners cannot seek revision in their pay scales as approved by the Government for the permanent employees from time to time. 9. Rule 2(ii) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998 reads as under :- “ (ii) These rules shall not apply to- (a) persons not in whole time employment of the Government; (b) persons paid out of contingencies; (c) persons employed on contract except when the contract provides otherwise; (d) Government servants who after their retirement, whether on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise, were re-employed by the Government and were in service on 1-9-1996; (e) Ex-Military personnel re-employed by the Government and who were in service on 1-9-1996; (f) persons employed on work-changed basis including those who are governed by the Rajasthan Public Works Department (Building & Roads) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964; (g) teachers of Government Colleges drawing pay in a scale prescribed under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales for Government College Teachers) Rules, 1988; (h) person who may be specifically excluded wholly or in part by the Governor from the operation of these rules.” 10. The petitioners were appointed under the Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation against the allocated posts for Class IV employees in the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer at Ratangarh, Churu. The Office Order dated 22 nd April 1995 by which the petitioners were appointed refers to the Circular dated 24 th December 1994 and a copy thereof was communicated to the Special Secretary, General Administration (Group-III) Government of Rajasthan, Secretary, Bureau of Public Enterprises, Director, Medical and Health Services and five other authorities including the Departmental Commissioner at Bikaner. The Office Order dated 22 nd April 1995 by which the petitioners were appointed refers to the Circular dated 24 th December 1994 and a copy thereof was communicated to the Special Secretary, General Administration (Group-III) Government of Rajasthan, Secretary, Bureau of Public Enterprises, Director, Medical and Health Services and five other authorities including the Departmental Commissioner at Bikaner. What is important to note in the Office Order dated 22 nd April 1995 is that it clearly mentions that the Class IV employees’ posts were allocated for appointment of the writ petitioners and they were given pay scales of Rs.750-940/- and Rs.700-865/-. By the Office Order dated 26 th May 1995, the pay fixation in respect of the petitioners was approved and they continued in service till they attained the age of 60 years after having served for more than 20 years under the Government Department, except Jagdish Prasad Deora and Chagan Lal Sharma; Mohan Lal Soni served for more than 27 years and superannuated from service with effect from 20 th July 2000. They were appointed under the Rajasthan Small Scale Industries Corporation by following the due process and their appointment pursuant to the policy decision of the government was also therefore in consonance with Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. They received salary from the Medical and Health Department and there was a direct employer-employee relationship between them and the Government Department. Though appointed on contract, the petitioners performed the duties which were integral part of the office of the Chief Medical and Health Superintendent. Their long standing services and the direct supervision of the Government Department clearly demonstrate that it was an exploitative engagement even in terms of the direction in paragraph no.53 in “Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi(3) & Ors.”, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and were entitled for similar benefits as given to the permanent employees on the basis of “equal pay for equal work”. The decisions relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General are clearly distinguishable on facts. In “R.D. Sharma”, the decision of the Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim of the employee for Apex Scale on the basis of “equal pay for equal work” was set aside by the High Court. The decisions relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General are clearly distinguishable on facts. In “R.D. Sharma”, the decision of the Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim of the employee for Apex Scale on the basis of “equal pay for equal work” was set aside by the High Court. It was in the context of the power of Superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India that the Supreme Court held that the High Court could not have interfered with the decision of the Tribunal because the task of job evaluation which includes various factors is ordinarily the function of the executive and not of the judiciary. In “Dr. K.M. Sharma”, the employees appointed as Shiksha Karmis under different Rules and through a different mode of selection were held not entitled to seek parity in pay scale with the Municipal Teachers. The decision in “Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru” turns on its own peculiar facts inasmuch as the employees were appointed as daily-rated employees. In “Gujarat Water Supply and Sewarage Board” whichwas an autonomous body, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was for the Board to take a conscious decision on the pay scales to be adopted and benefits to be given to its employees having regard to the financial implications. The decision in “Punjab State Co-operative Milk Federation” is concerning the financial stringency of the industrial undertakings, public sector corporations and the government employees. Similarly, in “A.K. Bindal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.” (2003) 5 SCC 163 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the employees cannot claim any legal right to seek revision in the pay scale if the Corporation is sustaining losses continuously over a period and does not have the financial capacity to revise or enhance the pay scale. Whereas, the petitioners were working under the Government Department after their retrenchment and no plea of financial crunch has been raised by the respondents. 11. “Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors.”, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826 is the decision on the point wherein the employees were engaged by the Central Water Commission on part time and ad-hoc terms as sweeper primarily responsible for cleaning and maintaining the office premises under the CWC and were entrusted with the tasks such as gardening, dusting and other maintenance and house keeping works. Observing that the employees though labeled as “part-time workers” performed the essential tasks typically associated with the sanctioned posts and that too on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods ranging over one decade to nearly twodecades, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the employees were entitled for regularization of their service. While holding so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reflected on the pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts in paragraph nos.22-27 of the reported judgment, thus:- “ 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:- Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are performing identical tasks entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long- serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in Irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularizatin exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. Thus selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against the judgment’s spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with International standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 12. In “Rajkaran Singh & Ors. This approach aligns with International standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 12. In “Rajkaran Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.”, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2138 which is another decision referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the employees who were appointed to manage the Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits Fund which was created through the personal contribution of the Special Frontier Force from their salaries claimed the benefits of the replacement scale of the Revised Pay Rules, 2008 as per the recommendation of 6 th Pay Commission. The objection taken by the Union of India was that those employees were not government employees and not appointed by following any Recruitment Rules and, therefore, the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 were not applicable to them. Another objection raised on behalf of the Union of India was that the services performed by such employees were not statutory in nature because the SSD fund was a voluntary contribution made by the SFF employees and the services rendered by them did not qualify as government service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in “Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors.”, (1981) 1 SCC 722 “Pradeep Kumar Vishwas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors.” , (2002) 5 SCC 111 and “R.D. Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India” , (1979) 3 SCC 489 and held that their employment had the characteristic of regular government employees and the denial of pensionary benefits to them on the basis of their temporary status was unfair and arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In “Rajkaran Singh”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in “Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.”,(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1533 wherein it was held that the essence of employment and rights of the employees flowing thereof cannot be determined merely by the initial terms of appointment when actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. In “Vinod Kumar”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “ 5. v. Union of India & Ors.”,(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1533 wherein it was held that the essence of employment and rights of the employees flowing thereof cannot be determined merely by the initial terms of appointment when actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. In “Vinod Kumar”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “ 5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status. 6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder: 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. Paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder: 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [ (1967) 1 SCR 128 ], R.N. Nanjundappa [ (1972) 1 SCC 409 ] and B.N. Nagarajan [ (1979) 4 SCC 507 ] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitment are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirements and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. 8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants’ arguments and hold that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuos service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.” 13. In summation, we hold that the petitioners’ employment under the Health Department had all the trappings of regular appointment and mere labeling of their employment “on contract basis” shall not deprive them of the benefits under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998. 14. In summation, we hold that the petitioners’ employment under the Health Department had all the trappings of regular appointment and mere labeling of their employment “on contract basis” shall not deprive them of the benefits under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998. 14. The petitioners have produced a copy of the Last Pay Certificate and the salary details for the year 1995-96 which reveal that they were paid Dearness Allowance, Washing Allowance, House Rent Allowance, etc. and deductions were made from their salary on account of Provident Fund and State Insurance. Still, the respondents have pleaded that the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES , 1951 shall not apply to the petitioners and they are not entitled for increment and other service-linked benefits. This plea has been taken by the respondents on the ground that the letter of appointment to the petitioners did not contain a stipulation that the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES , 1951 shall apply to them. However, Rule 2(iii)(a) clearly provides that these Rules shall apply to all persons appointed on contract basis except to the category of employees mentioned therein. Even the Office Order dated 26 th May 1995 provided that other allowances as approved by the State Government shall be paid to the petitioners. This also needs to be indicated that any service condition in the letter of appointment which is contrary to the statutory Rules under the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES , 1951 shall be inapplicable and must be held inoperative. The Circular dated 24 th December 1994 labeled as “Guidelines for Engaging the Retrenched Employees of Public Sector Undertakings on Contract” provided that a revision in the emoluments paid to such contractual employees may be considered to the extent of Dearness Allowance paid to the regular government employees while renewing the contract after expiry of the contract period. However, the guidelines are administrative instructions issued under the signature of the Secretary to Government and not statutory in nature and have no force of law to curtail the rights of the retrenched employees to seek the benefits which were otherwise admissible to them and were previously granted to them pursuant to the order of pay fixation. In fact, the provisions under the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES are referred in the Circular dated 24 th December 1994 and the leave terms and Appendix-II of the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES (Volume II) are made applicable to the contractual employees. In fact, the provisions under the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES are referred in the Circular dated 24 th December 1994 and the leave terms and Appendix-II of the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES (Volume II) are made applicable to the contractual employees. It is further provided that TA and DA shall be paid to them as per the Travelling Allowances Rules of the Government. Even the Medical Allowance of Rs.50/- per month has also been provided to the employees engaged on contract basis in the Government. Furthermore, one of the guidelines provided under the Circular dated 24 th December 1994 was that the retrenched employees appointed on contract shall be eligible for 12 days’ casual leave in a calendar year. As regards payment of salary and other benefits to the petitioners, this also needs a mention that in the previous proceeding this Court held that if the emoluments paid to the petitioners did not exceed the last pay drawn by them and if the same emoluments drawn previously by them have been offered to be paid in the same manner that was not per se contrary to the guidelines dated 24 th December 1994. This Court discussed this issue in the order dated 14 th March 2000 in the following manner :- “Now we come to the controversy regarding reduction of pay. In fixing term of appointment under the contract, it had not been provided how the contract emoluments shall be fixed. No rigidly fixed emoluments have been provided. The guidelines provided giving appointments not only to equivalent posts but to lower posts. About fixing of emoluments, matter has been left to be decided subject to limitation that it shall not exceed last drawn emoluments. If the last pay drawn by the retrenched employee were the basic pay + Dearness Allowance as granted by the State Govt. from time to time, the fixation of pay under the contract emoluments by fixing last drawn basic pay + Dearness Allowance as granted by the State Govt. cannot be said to be fixing emoluments exceeding the last pay drawn by the retrenched employee. If the same emoluments were being drawn by the employee have been offered to be paid in same manner it cannot be said to be per se contrary to the guidelines. cannot be said to be fixing emoluments exceeding the last pay drawn by the retrenched employee. If the same emoluments were being drawn by the employee have been offered to be paid in same manner it cannot be said to be per se contrary to the guidelines. It has not been shown that on the date of appointment, any one has been fixed with more emoluments than that were being paid to him. Moreover, the guidelines restricts the right of employee to claim more than what has been devised in the scheme, but it does not restrict the State to offer better emoluments. If no better emoluments are offered while giving appointment under the Scheme, perhaps no ground could have been raised by the incumbents to claim more beneficial terms. Question of withdrawal of emoluments once having given is a different question, particularly when pay and allowances are not governed by statutory rules but depends on executive order for its determination. …………” 15. Besides that, this is not in dispute that the petitioners after fixation of their pay received their salary which included Basic Pay, Dearness Allowance and other allowances as granted by the State Government from time to time. Now by virtue of order dated 08 th October 2001 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State of Rajasthan and its Officers came to be dismissed and the order dated 14 th March 2000 passed in D.B. Special Leave to Appeal No.2221 of 2001 was affirmed, the Office Order 26 th May 1995 has been restored and the petitioners have become entitled to claim the benefits which were initially granted to them under the said Office Order. The respondents have also not pleaded in their counter affidavit that the pay scale and other benefits previously granted to the petitioners were more than the emoluments paid to them while they were working under the Corporation. In view thereof, clause 7 under the Circular dated 24 th December 1994 which provided that the emoluments paid to the retrenched employees who were appointed on contract basis shall not exceed to the emoluments last drawn by them has become irrelevant in this case. In view thereof, clause 7 under the Circular dated 24 th December 1994 which provided that the emoluments paid to the retrenched employees who were appointed on contract basis shall not exceed to the emoluments last drawn by them has become irrelevant in this case. Even so, we must indicate that after the decision in “Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr.” , (1986) 3 SCC 156 this is a settled position in law that where a term of contract or agreement entered into between the parties is completely one- sided, unfair and unreasonable and where the other party had no or less bargaining power but to accept such term by force of circumstances, the Court shall not enforce such condition of service and strike down the same as unfair and unreasonable contract. In “Central Inland Water Transport Corporation”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- “ 89. The Constitution was enacted to secure to all the citizens of this country social and economic justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. The principle deducible from the above discussions on this part of the case is in consonance with right and reason, intended to secure social and economic justice andconforms to the mandate of the great equality clause in Article 14. This principle is that the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all bargains of this type. No court can visualise the different situations which can arise in the affairs of men. One can only attempt to give some illustrations. For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. It will apply where the inequality is the result of circumstances, whether of the creation of the parties or not. It will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them. It will apply where the inequality is the result of circumstances, whether of the creation of the parties or not. It will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them. It will also apply where a man has no choice, or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be. This principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the contracting parties is equal or almost equal. This principle may not apply where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction. In today's complex world of giant corporations with their vast infrastructural organisations and with the State through its instrumentalities and agencies entering into almost every branch of industry and commerce, there can be myriad situations which result in unfair and unreasonable bargains between parties possessing wholly disproportionate and unequal bargaining power. These cases can neither be enumerated nor fully illustrated. The court must judge each case on its own facts and circumstances.” 16. Having found so, we hold that the petitioners are entitled for revision in the pay scales on the same lines as was granted to other Class-IV regular employees under the Medical and Health Department. They are also held entitled for increments and the benefits of General Provident Fund and State Insurance as reflected in the Last Pay Certificate and provided to them before the Office Order dated 09 th September 1996 came to be passed. As the contributions on account of General Provident Fund and State Insurance were not deducted from their salary by the respondent-Authority even though the Office Order dated 09 th September 1996 was quashed, the petitioners are held not liable to pay any interest over the balance amount of contributory deposit. As the contributions on account of General Provident Fund and State Insurance were not deducted from their salary by the respondent-Authority even though the Office Order dated 09 th September 1996 was quashed, the petitioners are held not liable to pay any interest over the balance amount of contributory deposit. For availing the benefits of General Provident Fund and State Insurance, the petitioners shall deposit within eight weeks the total amount of their contribution as per the Rules and if, they do so, the General Provident Fund and State Insurance shall be paid to them within next eight weeks. 17. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1268 of 2003 is allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions.