JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. In all these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the part-time employees working with the lower judiciary, initially claimed the benefit of regularization, having worked for several years on the establishment of the Courts below.

SCA NO. 1752 OF 2015

2. This petition is filed by the petitioners who were working as Class-IV part-time sweepers in the various Courts established at Himmatnagar, District: Sabarkantha. It is their prayer that pending the petition, they may not be terminated from their services, that they may be given the benefit of regularization, that the policy of outsourcing be set aside.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms. Ashlesha Patel learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that she would be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents to pay the petitioners the minimum of the pay scale as framed by the Government Resolution dated 16.07.2019. Pursuant to the decisions of this Court, firstly rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7462 of 2012 and so confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1155 of 2019.

4. Ms. Parinda Davawala learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 submits that the petitioners are not entitled to the regularization in service and since they were part-timers, instructions had been given that such services be carried out through outsourcing. She would further submit that since they were not appointed through proper procedure, all benefits of regularization need not be extended to them. However, in view of the fact that the prayer today is restricted to that of granting the benefit of minimum of pay scale in pursuance of the decision of this Court referred to herein above and admittedly when the petitioners are in service, the petition is allowed to the extent that the respondent shall extend the benefit of minimum of pay scale to the petitioners in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 16.07.2019. This is particularly when the Division Bench of this Court had specifically opined and relied on the decision of Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148. Even on record is an interim order passed by this Court dated 31.05.2012 in Special Civil Application No. 7467 of 2012, by which, the coordinate bench of this Court had opined as under:

"10.0 After hearing Learned Counsels for both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioners have strong prima-facie case in their favour. Therefore it will have to be ascertained, whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners or not, and for that purpose, the following factors are taken into consideration.

11.0 It is not that the work is not there and therefore the petitioners are to be terminated. The work is there, and the said work is perennial in nature. That work is not such that, if not carried out on a particular day, can be kept pending and can be done the next day, since many of the petitioners are watchmen, sweepers etc. It is not even the case of the Government that because of no work or less work, the termination is required.

12.0 The intention of the Government as reflected in the impugned Government Resolution is that the work which is done by present petitioners and similarly situated persons, shall be got done through contractor by outsourcing. No details regarding this outsourcing is coming on record, as to whether these persons will be continued with the same work, with an interpolation of the contractor, and if yes, whether the petitioners who are even otherwise paid Rs. 1350/- per month will be made to work even for lesser amount, or whether the contractor will have full free hand to employ altogether new persons. If that is to happen, in effect, it would be replacing, if not regular, atleast present ad hoc employees with new ad hoc employees, the situation which is not only deprecated but is held to be impermissible in law.

13.