4 SC 164 and the same ordersdirections as given in that case be passed in this case
Accordingly respondents directed to pay wage
to the workmen employed as contingent paid staff of the Income tax Department throughout India doing the work of class IV employees at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scale of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres without any increments with effect from December 1 1986
Such workmen are also entitled to corresponding dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance payable thereon
Whatever other benefits are now being enjoyed by the said workmen shall continue to be extended to them
The respondents shall prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the contingent paid staff of the Income tax Department who have been continuously working for more than one year as Class lV employees in the Income tax Department
l7lH 172H 173A C 171  ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Civil No 1670 of 1986
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
RC Kaushik for the Petitioner
VC Mahajan Ms A Subhashini and Girish Chandra for the Respondents
The following order of the Court was delivered O R D E R This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
The petitioner in this case is the UP Income tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association
The members of the said association as the name of the Association itself suggests are the contingent paid staff in the Income tax Department
Their complaint is that even though they have been rendering the service as Class IV employees in the Income tax Department for a large number of years the Income tax Department has not taken steps to regularise their services and to absorb them as members of the Class IV services and that they are being paid wages as daily rated labourers lower than the salary and allowances which the Class IV employees of the Department have been drawing
They pray for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to pay them the same salary and allowances which are paid to the employees of the Department in corresponding posts and also for regularising their service
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents
The respondents do not deny that the contingent paid staff are being paid daily wages lower than what is being paid to regular employees
It also refers to certain Government order providing for regularisation under certain terms and conditions
When this petition came up for admission the Court directed that this case should be listed after the disposal of the Writ Petitions No 373 and 302 of 1986 instituted by the daily rated casual labour employed in the Posts and Telegraph Department since the questions involved in this case and in those two writ petitions were almost the same
By its judgment dated 27101987 in Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P  T Department 172 though Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch vs Union of lndia  Ors JT  this Court has issued the following directions as regards the claim of the daily rated workmen involved therein for higher wages We accordingly direct the Union of India and the other respondents to pay wages to the workmen who are employed as casual labourers belonging to the several categories of employees referred to above in the Posts  Telegraph Department at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scales of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres but without any increments with effect from 5th February 1986 on which date the first of the above two petitions namely Writ Petition No 302 of 1986 was filed
The petitioners are entitled to corresponding Dearness Allowance and Additional Dearness Allowance if any payable thereon
Whatever other benefits which are now being enjoyed by the casual labourers shall continue to be extended to them
 On the claim for regularisation of the services of the workmen involved in the above mentioned case this Court issued the following direction We therefore direct all the respondents to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the casual labourers who have been continuously working for more than one year in the Posts and Telegraph Department
 The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the facts and circumstances of the case relating to the daily rated labour in the Posts and Telegraph Department
We have carefully considered the pleas in the counter affidavit
The Government orders providing for the absorption of the contingent paid staff are hedged in by a number of conditions
We also find that many such employees have been working on daily wages for nearly eight years and more
We are not satisfied with the scheme which is now in force
We are therefore of the view that in this case also we should issue the same directions as in the above decision for the reasons given by the Court in the above decision
We accordingly allow this Writ Petition and direct the respondents to pay wages to the workmen who are employed as the contingent paid staff of the Income tax Department 173 throughout India doing the work of Class IV employees at the A rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scale of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres without any increments with effect from 1st December 1986
Such workmen are also entitled to corresponding Dearness Allowance and Additional Dearness Allowance payable thereon
Whatever other benefits which are now being enjoyed by the said workman shall continue to be extended to them
We further direct the respondents to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the contingent paid staff of the Income tax Department who have been continuously working for more than one year as Class IV employees in the Income tax Department
This petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs
SL Petition allowed


Summary:
 The respondent mortgaged his shop and delivered possession thereof to the mortgagees with the right to collect rent from the tenant in payment of the interest on the mortgage amount
The mortgagees let out the premises to the appellant tenant during the subsistence of the mortgage
The respondent filled a suit against the mortgagees for redemption of the mortgage and recovery of vacant possession of the mortgaged shop
The appellant tenant was also impleaded as a party defendant in the suit
The suit was decreed and the mortgage was redeemed with an order to the mortgagees to give possession of the shop to the respondent
The appellant tenant filed an application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the CPC stating that the decree of redemption could not be executed and possession given by the mortgagees to the respondentdecree holder as the tenancy of the appellant subsisted and the same had not been terminated under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1950
This plea of the appellant was rejected by the executing Court which held that the decree was executable and the appellant had no interest and he could not resist the execution of the decree
Against this Judgment and order of the court the appellant filed an appeal which was allowed
Thereupon the respondent preferred a second appeal which was allowed by the High Court
The appellant appealed to this Court by special leave against the order of the High Court
Dismissing the appeal the Court on a conspectus of the various decisions of the Court on the subject 100  HELD The lease given by the mortgagee during the subsistence of the mortgage came to an end on the redemption of the mortgage
The tenant of the mortgagee in possession is not entitled to the protection of the Rent Act against the mortgagor after redemption of the mortgage as held by the Rajasthan High Court in 1984 RLR 709 following the decisions of this Court
The letting out of the premises to the appellant tenant was not a prudent act done in the ordinary course of management as held by all the Courts below
The respondentmortgagor landlord is entitled to get recovery of possession
106A D Ms Sachalmal Parasram vs Mst
Ratanbai and Ors AIR 1972 SC 637 The All India Film Corp Ltd  Ors
vs Sri Raja Gyan Nath  Ors  Mahabir Cope  Ors
vs Harbans Narain Singh  Ors  Hanhar Prasad Singh  Anr
vs Must
Of Munshi Nath Prasad  Ors 1956 SCR t Asa Ram  Anr
vs Mst
Ram Kali Anr
AIR 1958 SC 183 and Om Prakash Garg vs Ganga Sahai  Ors
JT  referred to