JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) The appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order in WA No. 535/2001 and other connected appeals and also the dismissal of the Review Petition No. 124/2006 by the Division Bench of High Court of Gauhati, is before us in these appeals.

3) The factual matrix in brief is as under :

The Union of India (Respondents herein) had introduced "Family Welfare Scheme" under its Family Planning Programme with effect from 1st day of September, 1966. Under the said scheme, there was a provision for the appointment of `Voluntary Female Attendants' on a monthly honorarium of `50/- per month from the inception of the scheme, which was subsequently increased to `100/- per month with effect from February, 2001. According to the Union of India, the work of these attendants is to motivate people in their locality to have a small family. This assertion of the Union of India is disputed by the private respondents. They assert that though they were appointed as `Volunteers', they were made to assist the Auxiliary nurses-cum-midwives in the Health sub-centers at the time of field visit and for miscellaneous works like cleaning, etc. in the sub-centers.

4) Sometime in the year 1993, one such Voluntary Female Attendant - Nandeshwari Bora filed a writ petition CR No. 3847/1993 before the High Court of Gauhati against the State of Assam, on the ground that the work of the Voluntary Female Attendant under the aforesaid scheme and that of the regularly appointed `Ward Girls' by the respondents therein was similar and, therefore, demanded parity in the pay scale as `Ward Girls', which at that time was `900-1435 per month. The single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government to pay the minimum pay-scale in the time-scale of pay i.e. `900/- per month. Unfortunately, the text of this judgment of the learned Single Judge is not before us for our perusal, as the counsel appearing on both sides have stated that though they have made all efforts to secure a certified copy of the judgment, they have been unsuccessful, as the same is not available in the Registry of the High Court of Gauhati. Therefore, we will have to proceed without having the advantage of seeing the reasoning of the learned Judge in his conclusion. However, in the subsequent judgment passed by the High Court, there is some reference to the findings and conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge in Nandeshwari Bora's case. This may help us in understanding the reasoning and conclusion reached in Nandeshwari Bora's case.

5) After the decision of the High Court in Nandeshwari Bora's case in C.R. No. 3847 of 1993, nearly 54 (fifty four) Voluntary Female Attendants filed writ petition in the High Court, inter alia seeking the same relief that was granted in Nandeshwari Bora's case. The lead case was by Jalini Brahma being C.R. No. 3073 of 1995. The relief that was sought in the writ petition was for regularization of their services and for payment of salary as per the existing pay scale. In the light of the decision of the Court in Nandeshwari Bora's case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment and order dated 22.02.2000, partly allowed the writ petition and directed all the respondents (which included the Union of India and the State Government) to pay `900/- per month, the minimum of the pay scale to the Voluntary Female Attendants. The operative portion of the Judgment and order is extracted. It reads :-

"...Learned Counsel for the respondents have not been able to show anything whereby the petitioners can be deprived of their minimum wages. It is submitted that the ROP Rules of 1990 provide a pay scale of Rs.900-1435/- for the post of Female Attendant. Accordingly, I direct all the 7 respondents to pay the petitioner the minimum wages of Rs. 900/- per month from the month of July 1990 or from the date of their employment, whichever is later..."

6) However, with regard to the question of re