Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1929 (GAU)

V. Inali v. State of Nagaland

2025-11-28

N.UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

body2025
JUDGMENT : UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Toshi O. Longkumer. Also heard learned Government Advocate, Mr. E. Thiba Phom. . 2. The above noted writ petitions, having raised similar or identical issues, reliefs, prayed for, also being one and the same, with the consent of the parties, were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this order. 3. The petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, have prayed for authorizing to them salaries, at par with the salaries authorized to regular Warders, serving in various establishments under the Director General of Prisons, Department of Prisons, Nagaland. The petitioners have also prayed for formulation of a scheme/policy for regularization of their services, by also reserving 50% of the vacancies arising in the cadre of Warder, for the purpose of effecting regularization of their services. 4. The petitioners, herein, were engaged by the competent authority, in view of the exigencies arising, requiring engagement of Warders, beyond the sanctioned strength of the cadre and such engagement was projected to have been affected by invoking the provisions of Rule 177 of the Assam Jail Rules. The petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, were so engaged during the period w.e.f. 2001 to 2022. On their such engagement, the petitioners were authorized a scale of pay of Rs. 2750-4400/- per month. The petitioners are continuing to discharge their duties w.e.f the dates of their respective engagement, without any enhancement of the said scale of pay initially authorized to them. The petitioners having rendered long period of service, they raised a demand for being authorized the scale of pay authorized to the post of Warder in the Regular establishment, coming into effect on implementation of the Revision of Pay Rule 2017, in the State of Nagaland. It is to be noted that the scale of pay authorized to the petitioners is the scale authorized to the post of Warder, on the implementation of the Revision of Pay Rules 1999. The Petitioners projected that they had approached the respondent authorities on several occasions praying for enhancement of the scale of pay authorized to them at the time of their initial engagement, and to authorize to them the scale of pay presently authorized to the Regular posts of Warders. The Petitioners projected that they had approached the respondent authorities on several occasions praying for enhancement of the scale of pay authorized to them at the time of their initial engagement, and to authorize to them the scale of pay presently authorized to the Regular posts of Warders. The petitioners have also projected that on their engagement as Temporary Ordinary Grade Warder, they were deployed for various types of duties, which they contend are being discharged by them without any blemish. The petitioners in the above writ petitions have made categorical statements to the effect that the works done by them and the work so done by the regular Warders are one and the same and they are assigned duties in rotation with the regular Warders, however, they are denied the pay scale as authorized to the post of Warder in the regular establishment. The petitioners have further projected that the departmental authorities’ w.e.f 2015, in pursuance to a process initiated in the matter, proceeded to regularize 34 (thirty four) Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, against regular vacant posts of Warders. However, the said process of regularization was not continued in respect of the remaining Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, including the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions. The petitioners also project that the vacancies being available and they since their date of initial engagement, having been discharging duties similar to the one so discharged by the regular incumbents in the cadre of Warder; they are also entitled, given the length of services rendered by them, to be considered for regularization of their services. The pleas made by the petitioners before the respondent authorities for redressal of the grievances, noticed hereinabove, not being considered in the manner required, the petitioner had proceeded to institute the above noted writ petitions praying for the relief noticed, hereinabove. 5. Mr. Toshi O. Longkumer by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the pleadings brought on record by the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, with regard to the nature of duties discharged by them to be similar in all respects to the duties so discharged by the regular incumbents in the post of Warder, has not been disputed by the respondents in the affidavit filed by them. He submits that the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions on being engaged as Temporary Ordinary Grade (TOG) Warders were deployed for various types of duties including Custodial duty, Computer Operators, Medical attendants, Drivers, Office Peons, CCTV Operators, Dak runners, Water carriers etc. He submits that for the same nature of works, for which the petitioners were so engaged, the regular Warders were also deployed, in rotation. Mr. Toshi O. Longkumer, further submits that there are only 344 regular sanctioned posts of Warders and the same being found to be not sufficient for the discharge of the works involved, the competent authority had sanctioned 804 posts of TOG Warders. He submits that out of the posts so sanctioned, presently 784 Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, including the petitioners, herein, are discharging their duties. 6. Mr. Toshi O. Longkumer, submits that at the time of the initial engagement of the petitioners, herein, they were authorized the scale of pay of Rs. 2750-4400/- per month, which was the scale of pay as authorized to the post of Warder, under the provision of the Revision of Pay Rules, 1999. He submits that various Revision of Pay Rules coming into effect after 1999, had enhanced the pay of the post of Warder, however, such enhancement was not extended to the incumbents engaged as Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, like the petitioners. He submits that the incumbents in the post of Warders in the regular establishment are presently being paid their salaries in terms of the scale of pay coming into effect in pursuance to the Revision Of Pay Rules, 2017. 7. Mr. Toshi O. Longkumer further submits that the competent authority, vide communication dated 08.12.2021, while reiterating the administrative approval granted for creation of 844 posts of Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, had stipulated that there would be no further creation of post of Warder and the services of the Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders was to be utilized. He submits that the said stipulation as made in the communication dated 08.12.2021, would also reflect that the Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, discharged duties similar in nature to that of the regular Warders in various establishment, under the respondent No. 3. 8. Mr. He submits that the said stipulation as made in the communication dated 08.12.2021, would also reflect that the Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, discharged duties similar in nature to that of the regular Warders in various establishment, under the respondent No. 3. 8. Mr. Toshi O. Longkumer, submits that although a prayer is made in the writ petition for being extended to the petitioners the scale of pay authorized to the regular post of Warder, he fairly submits that the petitioners in the present proceedings would be entitled only to the minimum of the pay scale authorized to the post of Warders, in the regular establishment. Accordingly, he submits that this court would be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to extend to the petitioners; their wages at the minimum of the pay scale authorized to the regular Warders with retrospective effect, i.e., w.e.f., the date of coming into force of the Revision of Pay Rules, 2017. 9. Mr. Toshi O. Longkumer, further submits that the works discharged by the petitioners, as Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, being perennial in nature, the petitioners having rendered considerable period of service, they are required to be considered for regularization of their services. He submits that the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, satisfies the requisite eligibility criteria for being recruited against the sanctioned post of Warders and accordingly, he submits that considering the nature of work discharged by the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitioners, they would be entitled to have their respective services regularized. He submits that given the peculiar nature of the duties required to be discharged by the petitioners, herein, the respondent’s authorities be directed to prepare a scheme for the regularization of the services of Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, against sanctioned vacant post of Warders, becoming available from time to time. He further prays that to ensure that the petitioners get their respective dues and service protection, the respondent authorities are required to be directed to keep at least 50% of the vacant post, arising every year, in the cadre of Warder, reserved for regularization of the services of the Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, like the petitioners. 10. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, Mr. 10. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, Mr. E. Thiba Phom, submits that, given the manner of recruitment, educational qualifications requisite for being recruited as a regular Warder, which is regulated by the provisions of the Nagaland Jail Service Rules, 2010, the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, would not be entitled to be extended with the pay scale authorized to the post of Regular Warder. He submits that mere similarity of designation or similarity with regard to the quantum of work would not be the determinative factor for equalization of the pay scale of Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, with that of the regular Warders. He submits that the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, were engaged on account of an exigency arising and such engagement cannot be equated with the recruitment effected of incumbents against the sanctioned post of Warders in the regular establishment. Mr. E. Thiba Phom has further submitted that the ROP Rules 2017, was framed by the Government of Nagaland, under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and, it was stipulated, therein, that the same would be applicable only to regular employees and would not be applicable to workcharged, contractual, contingent workers etc. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioners claim for being authorized the pay scale and/or the minimum of the pay scale authorized to the post of regular Warders, would not mandate acceptance of this Court. 11. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that the government has formulated a scheme for regularization of persons appointed on temporary, casual and contingent basis vide Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015; he submits that the provisions of the Office Memo dated 17.03.2015, lays down the manner in which regularization of services, of temporary workers would be effected. He submits that the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015, reflects the policy decision of the Government in the connection and accordingly a parallel policy, only for the purpose of regularization of the services of the Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, would not be mandated to be so formulated. He submits that the cases of the petitioners, herein, would be considered for regularization of their services in accordance with provisions of the said Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015, subject to they fulfilling the eligibility criterias, spelt out, therein. He submits that the cases of the petitioners, herein, would be considered for regularization of their services in accordance with provisions of the said Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015, subject to they fulfilling the eligibility criterias, spelt out, therein. Accordingly he submits that this Court would be pleased not to pass any direction with regard to the claim made by the petitioners for regularization of their services. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsels for the parties has also been meticulously perused by this Court. 13. The pleadings brought on record as well as from the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is found that two issues arise for consideration by this Court, in the above noted writ petitions: The 1 st issue pertains to the claim of the petitioner for being extended with the minimum of the pay scale authorized to the post of Warders in the regular establishment, in pursuance to the implementation of the Revision of Pay Rules, 2017 and the 2 nd issue relates to the prayer of the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, for regularization of their services. 14. This Court would consider the 1 st issue pertaining to pay parity as raised by the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions. This Court at the outset would notice the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 148 , wherein, an issue similar in nature to the one arising in the present proceedings, was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on consideration of the issue as to whether daily wage employees, ad hoc employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale on account of their performing the same duties which were discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned post, proceeded to draw the following conclusions: "42. All the judgments noticed in paras 7 to 24 hereinabove, pertain to employees engaged on regular basis, who were claiming higher wages, under the principle of "equal pay for equal work". All the judgments noticed in paras 7 to 24 hereinabove, pertain to employees engaged on regular basis, who were claiming higher wages, under the principle of "equal pay for equal work". The claim raised by such employees was premised on the ground, that the duties and responsibilities rendered by them were against the same post for which a higher pay scale was being allowed in other government departments. Or alternatively, their duties and responsibilities were the same as of other posts with different designations, but they were placed in a lower scale. Having been painstakingly taken through the parameters laid down by this Court, wherein the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was invoked and considered, it would be just and appropriate to delineate the parameters laid down by this Court. In recording the said parameters, we have also adverted to some other judgments pertaining to temporary employees (also dealt with, in the instant judgment), wherein also, this Court had the occasion to express the legal position with reference to the principle of "equal pay for equal work". Our consideration, has led us to the following deductions: 42.1. The "onus of proof" of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post under the principle of "equal pay for equal work" lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the court has to establish that the subject post occupied by him requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post (see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case, UT Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur, SAIL case and National Aluminium Co. Ltd. case). 42.2. The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant is in a "different department" vis-à-vis the reference post does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim underthe principle of "equal pay for equal work". Persons discharging identical duties cannot be treated differently in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of the Government (see Randhir Singh case and D.S. Nakara case). 42.3. The principle of "equal pay for equal work", applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification (see Randhir Singh case). Persons discharging identical duties cannot be treated differently in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of the Government (see Randhir Singh case and D.S. Nakara case). 42.3. The principle of "equal pay for equal work", applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification (see Randhir Singh case). For equal pay, the employees concerned with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal, should be of the same quality and sensitivity (see Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers case, Mewa Ram Kanojia case, Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union case and S.C. Chandra case). 42.4. Persons holding the same rank/designation (in different departments). but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" (Randhir Singh case, State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn and Hukum Chand Gupta case) Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature. 42.5 In determining equality of functions and responsibilities under the principle of "equal pay for equal work", it is necessary to keep in mind that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible (see Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers case and SBI case 14 ). The nature of work of the subject post should be the same and not less onerous than the reference post. Even the volume of work should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the principle of "equal pay for equal work" (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia and Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union case). 42.6. For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. 42.6. For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay scale (see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case). 42.7. Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay scales. Such as- "selection grade", in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia). 42.8. If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis-a-vis the reference post are different, it may be difficult to conclude that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are qualitatively similar or comparable (see Mewa Ram Kanojía case and State of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy). In such a case the principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be invoked. 42.9. The reference post with which parity is claimed under the principle of "equal pay for equal work" has to be at the same hierarchy in the service as the subject post. Pay scales of posts may be different, if the hierarchy of the posts in question, and their channels of promotion, are different. Even if the duties and responsibilities are same, parity would not be permissible, as against a superior post, such as a promotional post (see Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey and Hukum Chand Gupta case. 42.10. A comparison between the subject post and the reference post under the principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be made where the subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having a different management. Or even, where the establishments are in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master (see Harbans Lal case). Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity (see Official Liquidator v. Dayanand). 42.11. Different pay scales, in certain eventualities, would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy in the cadre. Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity (see Official Liquidator v. Dayanand). 42.11. Different pay scales, in certain eventualities, would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy in the cadre. As for instance, if the duties and responsibilities of one of the posts are more onerous, or are exposed to higher nature of operational work/risk, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not be applicable. And also when the reference post includes the responsibility to take crucial decisions, and that is not so for the subject post (see SBI case). 42.12. The priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government can also be a relevant factor or placing different posts under different pay scales. Herein also, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not be applicable (see State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn.). 42.13. The parity in pay, under the principle of "equal pay for equal work", cannot be claimed merely on the ground that at an earlier point of time the subject post and the reference post, were placed in the same pay scale. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbents of the subject post and the reference post, discharge similar duties and responsibilities (see State of W.B. v. Minimum Wages Inspectors Assn.). 42.14. For parity in pay scales under the principle of "equal pay for equal work", equation in the nature of duties is of paramount importance. If the principal nature of duties of one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non- teaching, the principle would not be applicable. If the dominant nature of duties of one post is of control and management, whereas the subject post has no such duties, the principle would not be applicable. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the principle would not be applicable (see U.T. Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur). 42.15. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the principle would not be applicable (see U.T. Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur). 42.15. There can be a valid classification in the matter of pay scales between employees even holding posts with the same nomenclature i.e between those discharging duties at the headquarters, and others working at the institutional/sub-office level (see Hukum Chand Gupta case), when the duties are qualitatively dissimilar. 42.16. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not be applicable, where a differential higher pay scale is extended to persons discharging the same duties and holding the same designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation, or on account of lack of promotional avenues (see Hukum Chand Gupta case). 42.17. Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organizations, and another set of employees of a different organizations, there can be no question of equation of pay scales under the principle of "equal pay for equal work", even if two organizations have a common employer. Likewise, if the management and control of two organizations is with different entities which are independent of one another, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would not apply (see S.C. Chandra case and National Aluminum Co. Lid. case. …………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………… 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… 60. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… 60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work", in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the employees concerned (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by regular employees holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" summarized by us in para 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted that during the course of their employment, the temporary employees concerned were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities which at some point in time were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts were also posted to discharge the same work which was assigned to temporary employees from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity on any of the principles summarized by us in para 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would be applicable to all the temporary employee concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post." 15. There can be no doubt, that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would be applicable to all the temporary employee concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post." 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Ors. (2019) 12 SCC 297, while considering the claim of Daily-rated workers employed against Group-D post in the Forest Department of State of Uttar Pradesh, after noticing the decisions of the Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (Supra) had proceed to draw the following conclusions ; “9. The daily-wagers relied upon a judgment of this Court in Putti Lal and submitted that the same relief may be extended to them. It is relevant to note that the judgment in Putti Lal relates to a dispute similar to that involved in this case. Daily-rated wage earners in the Forest Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh approached the High Court for regularization of their services. The Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad directed the State Government to constitute the Committee as directed in order to frame the scheme for regularization. The judgment of the High Court that the daily- rated wage workers shall be paid at the minimum of the pay scales was affirmed by this Court on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Division Bench of the High Court while deciding State of U.P. v. Chhiddi referred to the judgment in Putti Lal but placed reliance on a later judgment of this Court in Tilak Raj. The Division Bench of the High Court also cited Surjit Singh to hold that the daily-wagers cannot seek the benefit of the judgment of Putti Lal case in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court wherein, according to the High Court, it was held that daily-wage employees were not entitled to the minimum of the pay scales. 10. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh held as follows: (SCC p. 223, para 58) "58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. 10. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh held as follows: (SCC p. 223, para 58) "58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self- respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation." 11. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh is whether temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj and Surjit Singh, this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post. 12. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh, we are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the appellants herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the appellants relating to the regularization of their services. 12. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh, we are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the appellants herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the appellants relating to the regularization of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal relating to persons who are similarly situated to the appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service.” 16. The said decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (Supra) and Sabha Shanker Dube (Supra) has consistently been followed by this Court in various cases. Applying the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noticed Judgments to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioners, herein, are rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as are being discharged by the incumbents in the post of Warder in the regular establishment. This Court also finds that the contentions raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions in this connection have not been contested by the respondents in their affidavit. This Court having found no differentiation between the works discharged by the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, as Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders and those discharged by the incumbents in the post of Warder in the regular establishment, this Court is of the considered view that the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (Supra) and Sabha Shankar Dube (Supra), shall apply with all force to the facts of the present cases. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, cannot be paid a lesser amount then the amount paid for discharge of the same work by the regular incumbent in the cadre of Warder. 17. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that, the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions are entitled to be authorized their respective wages at the minimum of the scale of pay authorized to the post of Warder existing in the regular establishment. 17. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that, the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions are entitled to be authorized their respective wages at the minimum of the scale of pay authorized to the post of Warder existing in the regular establishment. The petitioners had prayed for authorization of their wages at the minimum of the scale of pay of the post of Warder, with retrospective effect, i.e., w.e.f. the date of coming into force of the Revision of Pay Rules, 2017, in the State. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioners would only be entitled to receive their such wages w.e.f. a date prior to 3(three) years, from the date of institution of the above noted writ petitions.[Refer decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh , (2008) 8 SCC 648 . 18. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now examine the 2 nd issue pertaining to regularization of the services of the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions. The prayer of the petitioners is for a direction upon the respondent authorities to formulate a scheme for the regularization of the services of the Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders. This Court has been apprised by the learned Government Advocate that the government has already formulated a scheme for regularization and absorption of workcharged, casual and other temporary employees, vide issuance of the Office Memorandums dated 22.09.2004 and 17.03.2015. This Court has perused the said Office memorandums and finds that the same lays down the manner in which workcharged/casual employees, would be regularized in their services. The State having already formulated a scheme for regularization of the services of the workcharged/casual employees in the State, this Court finds that the same would also stand attracted to the cases of the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions. The provisions of the said Office Memorandums dated 22.09.2004 and 17.03.2015, are not under challenge, in the present proceedings. Accordingly, given the policy of the state for regularization of services of temporary workers, as reflected in the above noted Office Memorandums, holding the field, it would not be permissible for this Court to proceed to direct the respondent authorities to prepare a fresh scheme for the regularization of the services of the Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, including the petitioners, herein. Consequently, this Court rejects the claim of the petitioners for preparation of a separate scheme for regularization of their services and directs that the policy of the State as contained in the Office Memorandums dated 22.09.2004 and 17.03.2015, shall also govern the matter of regularization of the services of the Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, like the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, subject to fulfillment of the criterias spelt out, therein. 19. In view of the above discussions, this Court passes the following directions: i. The respondent authorities shall authorize to the petitioners in their above noted writ petitions, working as Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, the minimum of the pay scale authorized to the post of warder figuring in the regular establishment in terms of the provisions of the Revision of Pay, Rules, 2017. They would be authorized the wages in the minimum of the scale of pay as authorized to the post of Warder in the regular establishment, with retrospective effect i.e, with effect from a date 3(three) years prior to the date of the institution of the above noted writ petitions. ii. On such fixation of the wages of the petitioners in terms of the direction passed, herein, above, the arrears thereof shall be released to the petitioners within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. iii. The claim of the petitioners for preparation of the scheme for regularization of their services stands rejected. The policy of the State for regularization of temporary workers as contained in the Office Memorandums dated 22.09.2004 and 17.03.2015 is held to be also applicable to the case of Temporary Ordinary Grade Warders, like the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions and their claim for regularization be considered in terms of the provisions of the said Office Memorandums, subject to each of the petitioners fulfilling the eligibility criterias spelt out, therein. 20. With the above observations and directions, the writ petitions being WP(C).No.214/2024, WP(C).No.215/2024, WP(C).No.216/2024, WP(C).No.217/2024 and WP(C).No.218/ 2024 stand disposed of.