JUDGMENT

Mohammad Rafiq, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petition filed by the respondent has been disposed of in terms of order dated 15.05.2017 passed by another Single Bench in Budh Singh v. Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1882/2016). Aforesaid writ petition filed by Budh Singh was allowed in part in following terms:

"Consequently, following the principle of equal pay for equal work, and the mandate of law as interpreted in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. (supra), as prayed, the present petition is allowed to the limited extend by holding that the petitioner shall be entitled to grant of minimum regular pay scale and the salary of the petitioner shall be fixed in the regular minimum pay scale from the date of his initial appointment. However, arrears to be paid to the petitioner shall be restricted to thirty eight months before filing of the writ petition. The respondent shall however, calculate the regular pay scale of the petitioner by extending revision of pay scale as was admissible to other employees from time to time."

2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants-respondents has submitted that as far as prayer of the respondent-writ petitioner in the writ petition for regularisation is concerned, since learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-petitioner prayed for disposal of the writ petition in terms of order passed in Budh Singh (supra), therefore, that prayer stood not pressed, but he contended that the writ petitioner be paid minimum pay scale as being paid to other employees including persons junior to him. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others vs. Jagjit Singh & Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 . It is argued that the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition of the respondent in terms of judgment passed in Budh Singh (supra) wherein the respondent-petitioner was held entitled to minimum pay scale from the date of initial appointment. However, the arrears were restricted to 38 months before filing of the writ petition.

3. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others vs. Jagjit Singh & Others (supra), learned Additional Advocate General argued that the supreme Court in para 55 of the Report modified judgment of the High Court by directing that concerned employees would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale, of the category to which they belong, but would not be entitled to allowances attached to the post held by them. He also argued that there was no justification for granting arrears of the salary for 38 months before filing of the writ petition, particularly when the writ petition itself was filed on 13.07.2011.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General cited judgment dated 13.03.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Another vs. Jagdish Prasad Sharma (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1023/2006) and argued that the Division Bench of this Court has set aside judgment dated 13.07.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby services of the respondent-petitioner were ordered to be regularized but directed that he shall be entitled to minimum wages payable by the State Government to the employees of his status. His argument therefore is that in the light of aforesaid judgment, subsequent writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner was not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner submitted that vide award dated 27.09.1994 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur (for short 'the Labour Court') not only termination of the petitioner was declared illegal but he was declared entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The appellant reinstated the respondent in service but he was not regularised and was paid Rs. 2/- per day which