The respondents were  engaged by the Department directly as daily wagers, but, they were not being paid the minimum wages. Those daily wagers, who were engaged prior to the year 2013, were being paid minimum wages and were getting an amount of Rs.16,300 per month, whereas, the respondents, who were engaged by the Department directly, were getting approximately Rs. 7,000 per month, less than the minimum wages. The Directorate of Income-tax, New Delhi issued instructions dated October 23, 2018, whereby, Office Order dated May 13, 2013 was withdrawn and all Chief Commissioners of Income-tax/Directors General of Income-tax were directed to ensure compliance with the order dated October 23, 2018 immediately. In view of the instructions dated October 23, 2018, the Department started to engage the respondents through outsourcing ignoring the fact that the respondents were directly engaged by the Department as casual workers. The respondents, who were engaged by the Department directly, were not being paid minimum wages, whereas, similarly situated casual workers were being paid the minimum wages. On writ petitions, the single judge observed that the petitioners were engaged in 2013 and some casual workers were engaged prior to 2013 directly by the Department, and therefore, merely on the ground that the petitioners were engaged in 2013, the criteria of payment of minimum wages could not be changed. The single judge disposed of the three writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioners as casual workers in the Department as they were directly engaged by the Department and they should be paid minimum wages as were being paid to similarly engaged daily wagers who were engaged prior to 2013. On appeal :  dismissing the appeal, that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the single judge had not erred in passing the judgment. Followed  State of Punjab v. Jagjit singh [2017] 1 SCC 148 ,