JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. Admit. Learned advocates waive service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.04.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant-original petitioner seeking regularization of service and to grant the benefits of regular pay, which has been extended to other employees of the State Government as per the Government Resolutions dated 16.02.2006, 01.08.2006 and 18.01.2017. BRIEF FACTS 3. The appellant-original petitioner was appointed as an Accountant-cum-Store Keeper/Typist in the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) namely, Ali Yavar Jung National Institute for the Hearing Handicapped, Bandra (W), Mumbai (“AYJNIHH” for short) on a consolidated salary of Rs.4,000/- per month on contractual basis for a period of 179 days at the District Centers for Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities, Rajkot / Jamnagar. The Terms and Conditions of the appointment order reveal that she will not be governed by the Rules & Regulations applicable to AYJNIHH / Central Government temporary / permanent employees. It is further clarified that the services rendered during the contract period does not bestow on her any claim for regularization. The appointment of the appellant-petitioner stems out of the scheme promulgated by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India and having District Disability Rehabilitation Center (“DDRC” for short), previously known as District Center for the Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities (DCRPD), in the entire country to provide rehabilitation service to the persons with disabilities. 4. The aforesaid NGO - AYJNIHH, Mumbai appointed various personnel - employees in different districts of the State Government. The centers were run by 100% grant by the Central Government for the first years; and after a period of 03 years, the said centers were completely taken over by the State Government. It appears that in the year 2013, the State Government, vide Government Resolution dated 17.10.2013 sanctioned Rs.1,40,00,000/- for the functioning of such centers and also created posts on a contractual basis having a fixed salary of Rs.9,400/- per month. The resolution specifically mentions that the service of such employees, who are appointed on a contractual post of Rs.9,400/- will be coterminous with the project under the District Early Intervention and Rehabilitation Center (DEIRC). There were 72 posts created having Rs.9,400/- as a fixed pay-scale. The resolution specifically mentions that the service of such employees, who are appointed on a contractual post of Rs.9,400/- will be coterminous with the project under the District Early Intervention and Rehabilitation Center (DEIRC). There were 72 posts created having Rs.9,400/- as a fixed pay-scale. Again on 19.02.2024, budget of Rs.1,40,00,000/- was sanctioned for the very same post. 5. The appellant-petitioner filed the captioned writ petition claiming the regularization and also minimum of pay-scale, as per the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors., AIR 2016 SC 5176 . Learned Single Judge, after threadbare examination of the appointment order of the appellant-petitioner as well as recital of the manual issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of the Central Government, has rejected the writ petition, which has given rise to the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 6. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Kalwani appearing for the appellant-original petitioner has submitted that the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside since the appellant is entitled to a minimum of pay-scale on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, as per the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra). She has submitted that it is true that the appointment of the appellant was appointed on contractual basis by one NGO namely, AYJNIHH and thereafter, the State Government has taken over the entire scheme and as on today, the entire scheme is being funded by the State Government and there is 100% grant by the State Government in operating such NGO. She has submitted that in these circumstances since the State Government is funding the project, the appellant is entitled to be regularized on 72 posts, which have been created for the implementation of the scheme. She has submitted that the nature of appointment of the appellant will not be a determinate factor for the grant of regularization. 7. Learned advocate Ms.Kalwani has also placed reliance on the CAV judgement of the Division Bench of this Court dated 30.04.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.4225 of 2011 in support of her submissions. She has submitted that the nature of appointment of the appellant will not be a determinate factor for the grant of regularization. 7. Learned advocate Ms.Kalwani has also placed reliance on the CAV judgement of the Division Bench of this Court dated 30.04.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.4225 of 2011 in support of her submissions. She has submitted that in the case of employees employed on a fixed monthly wages of Rs.3,500/- approached this Court claiming regular pay-scale against the very same Department and by the said judgement, this Court has directed the State Government to place such employees on a regular pay-scale. She has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the nature of the duties, which are undertaken by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant as on today, is being paid Rs.14,500/- and she is entitled to the minimum of pay-scale of Rs.9,300-34,800 with the grade pay of Rs.4,200/-, which is at par with Class-III employees of the State Government. Thus, it is urged that the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to confer minimum of pay-scale to the appellant, after regularizing her service. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE : 8. Vehemently opposing the present appeal, learned Government Pleader Mr.Virk has submitted that the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference since the same is precisely passed, after threadbare examination of the nature of the appointment of the appellant as well as provisions of the manual and also the scheme of the State Government. He has invited attention of this Court to the various observations made in various judgements by the Apex Court in this regard. Thus, it is urged by him that the appeal may not be entertained. 9. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and also perused the documents, as pointed out by them. ANALYSIS 10. As narrated hereinabove, the appellant is claiming regularization of her service and regular pay-scale and in the alternative, a minimum of regular pay-scale, as per the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. ANALYSIS 10. As narrated hereinabove, the appellant is claiming regularization of her service and regular pay-scale and in the alternative, a minimum of regular pay-scale, as per the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. At the outset, it is an established fact that the appellant was appointed by the NGO - AYJNIHH, Mumbai, on 28.09.2001. The appointment order itself exposits that her appointment is purely on a contractual basis for implementing the directions of the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi. The appointment order mentions that the appellant is appointed at the DDRC and the said center will be looked after by the NGO - AYJNIHH, Mumbai for a period of 03 years. The appointment of the appellant is made for a period of 179 days in the center on the terms and conditions that she will be paid monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- without any allowances. The conditions also mention that she will not be governed by the rules and regulations applicable to AYJNIHH / Central Government temporary / permanent employees and essential condition No.5 mentions that the services rendered during the contract basis does not bestow on her any claim for regularization. 11. It appears that thereafter, service of the appellant was continued on the very same terms and conditions. The Office Order reflects that there was no change in the conditions. It appears that in the year 2013, the State Government issued Government Resolution dated 17.10.2013 and sanctioned the grant of Rs.1,40,00,000/- for the administrative expenditure. The conditions mentioned in the said Government Resolution categorically refer that the said amount is sanctioned for DEIRC and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Center (PMRC) however, implementation of the project will be made on a contractual basis of Rs.9,400/- and the said condition of the Government Resolution specifically refers that the appointment would be coterminous to the project. The Government sanctioned 72 posts having nomenclature of Prosthetic Orthotist Engineer, Orthotist Technician, Vocational Counsellor and Accountant / Store Keeper. Unquestionably, there is no post sanctioned, which the appellant is holding. Be that as it may. The same would also not call for any right for regularization. It appears that thereafter another Government Resolution dated 19.02.2024 was issued sanctioning further Rs.1,40,00,000/- for administrative expenditure on the same line. 12. Unquestionably, there is no post sanctioned, which the appellant is holding. Be that as it may. The same would also not call for any right for regularization. It appears that thereafter another Government Resolution dated 19.02.2024 was issued sanctioning further Rs.1,40,00,000/- for administrative expenditure on the same line. 12. Learned Single Judge has also referred to the Manual for establishing the DDRC for implementing the scheme and appointing manpower. Learned Single Judge has categorically recorded and we have also agreed that the manpower are made in various District Hospitals on several posts on a contractual basis. There is no provision mentioned in the Manual, which entitles the appellant to claim either regular pay-scale or minimum of pay-scale. 13. We may now deal with the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra), on which heavy reliance is placed by learned advocate Ms.Kalwani. A bare perusal of the judgement would reveal that while examining the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, the Apex Court had, in context of those employees, who are appointed on a temporary work i.e. daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees with different departments of the Government and are doing similar work to that of regular employees, has directed that such employees of such departments, are entitled to the minimum of pay-scale. 14. The ratio of the said judgement would not apply to the appellant as her initial appointment itself was by the NGO - AYJNIHH, Mumbai and it is coterminous with the projects. The life or tenure or duration of the project cannot be the factor of conferring the regular pay-scale to an employee, who is appointed only for the purpose of implementing the scheme. The case of the appellant cannot be compared to any other regular employee of other Government department. 15. We may at this stage refer to the decision of the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka State Co-op-apex Bank Limited vs. Y.S.Shetty, 2002 (10) S.C.C. 179 : “5. The appointment letters which have been issued to those respondents who have been selected under the said advertisement of 21.2.1987 contain a clause to the effect that the appointment is purely on a contract basis on the consolidated salary of Rs 1800 per month for the first year and this will be increased in the second year. The appointment letters which have been issued to those respondents who have been selected under the said advertisement of 21.2.1987 contain a clause to the effect that the appointment is purely on a contract basis on the consolidated salary of Rs 1800 per month for the first year and this will be increased in the second year. Clause 2 states that the period of contract is two years. However, the Bank reserves the right unilaterally to terminate the contract within the said period with one month's notice. The agreements which have been entered into by the respondents pursuant to the said letters of appointment also recite that the appointments on consolidated salary are purely temporary and on a contract basis for a period of two years. Clause 1 of the agreement similarly states that the respondent has agreed to work on a contract basis for a period of two years as a mobile trainer-cum-guide and clause 9 provides that the respondent shall have no right to insist either for extension of the contractual period or to demand any other emoluments, such as increments, allowances, gratuity etc. 6. The terms and conditions of service of all the respondents are, therefore, clearly, governed by the letters of appointment issued to them and the agreements entered into by them with the appellant Bank at the time of their appointment. They were all appointed as mobile trainers on a temporary/contract basis for a fixed period or till the completion of the Project. 7. On completion of the Project, the appellant Bank decided to absorb the respondents as Clerks in the appellant Bank. For this purpose, the Bank also obtained an order dated 27.12.1991 from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies at Karnataka, permitting them to so absorb the respondents. Accordingly the respondents have been so absorbed w.e.f. 1.7.1989 and additional salary on that basis has also been paid to the respondents. Since the respondents were not satisfied with being absorbed as Clerks and wanted that they should be absorbed in the higher cadre as Assistant Managers, they filed a writ petition before the High Court which has been decided ultimately by the Division Bench as set out above. 8. The narrow question is whether on account of the original resolution passed by the appellant Bank on 7.8.1985, the respondents can claim that their appointments are on a permanent basis. 8. The narrow question is whether on account of the original resolution passed by the appellant Bank on 7.8.1985, the respondents can claim that their appointments are on a permanent basis. The terms and conditions of appointment of the respondents are governed, not by the resolution, but by the letters of appointment and the agreements entered into by them with the appellant Bank at the time of their appointment. Since the documents clearly show the appointments to be temporary and for the purposes of NCDC III Project, which Project has come to an end, the respondents cannot claim any right to a permanent post in the appellant Bank. 9.This Court has held that when the posts are created for the purposes of the project, and the project is completed, no directions can be issued for the continuation of the posts. (See in this connection the Judgement in Jawaharlal Nehry Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya V/s. Bal Kishan Soni and state of H.P. v. Nodha Ram.)” 16. Thus, as per the decision of the Full Bench of the Apex Court, once an employee accepts the terms and conditions of the contract of his appointment order, he will be governed by such terms and conditions of service. In that case, the Bank had in fact, absorbed such employees, who are employed on contractual basis and employees thereafter, had claimed to be absorbed in higher cadre however, the Apex Court denied the claim by holding that the terms and conditions of the appointment of such employees are governed, not by the resolution, but by the letters of appointment and the agreements entered into by them with the Bank at the time of their appointment. It is also held that the employees have no right to right to a permanent post. 17. The Apex Court in the case of Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur (M.P.) Vs. Bal Kishan Soni & Ors., and State of H.P. Vs. Nodha Ram, 1997 (5) S.C.C. 86 has held that when the posts are created for the purpose of project and the project is completed, no direction can be issued for continuation of such posts. 18. Bal Kishan Soni & Ors., and State of H.P. Vs. Nodha Ram, 1997 (5) S.C.C. 86 has held that when the posts are created for the purpose of project and the project is completed, no direction can be issued for continuation of such posts. 18. So far as the reliance placed on the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court dated 30.04.2012 rendered in Special Civil Application No.4225 of 2011 is concerned, the same will not come to the rescue of the appellant as the judgement does not deal with the nature of the appointment. In the present case, the appointment of the appellant was itself made by the NGO - AYJNIHH, Mumbai and has been continued thereafter and will be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract. 19. In the present case, the absolute discretion lies with the State Government to continue the appellant and looking to the nature of her initial appointment and terms and conditions read with the provisions of Manual, the appellant cannot be conferred either with the regular pay- scale or the minimum of pay-scale. However, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be denied the minimum wages as per the MINIMUM WAGES ACT , 1948, which are also conferred to the part-time employees of the State Government. 20. Thus, the State Government is directed to consider the case of the appellant for conferring the minimum wages at par with the part-time employees in case the appellant is not conferred the wages below the statutory mandate. 21. With these observations, the present appeal is rejected. As a sequel, the connected civil application also stands disposed of.