JUDGMENT

N. P. SINGH, J.:- These petitions have been filed for initiating proceeding for contempt, against the respondents for having disobeyed and ignored the order passed by this Court on 2-6-1988 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 597 of 1986 (reported in AIR 1988 SC 1504 : 1988 lab IC 1673).

2. The petitioners were working as instructs under the Adult and Non-formal Education Scheme, under the Education Department of Haryana. The object of the said Scheme was to impart literacy (functional and awareness) to the adult illiterates in age group of 15-35 years and to provide literacy to the children in the age group of 5-15 years who were dron-outs from the primary and middle school level or who had never joined any regular school. At the relevant time there was another scheme known as State Social Education Scheme in the State of Haryana, for imparting education to the illiterates in the villages known as State Adult Education Programme. The teachers employed under the Scheme were known as squad teachers.

3. In the year 1981 the services of the head squad teachers and squad teachers were regularised and the pay scales of regular Head Masters and teachers of primary schools maintained by the State Government were given to them. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition claimed that they were also performing the same nature of duties as performed by squad teachers as such they were also entitled to pay scales of the squad teachers under the Education Department along with other benefits from the date they were initially appointed.

4. On behalf of the State, this claim was contested. According to the State, the writ petitioners who were instructors, did not perform similar duties as performed by squad teachers. But it was said by this Court [AIR 1988 SC 1504 at p.1510]:

"There is no doubt that instructors and squad teachers are employees of the same employer doing work of similar nature in the same Department , therefore the appointment on a temporary basis or on regular basis does not affect the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Article 39(d) contained in part IV of the Constitution ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Though Article 39 is included in the Chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, but it is fundamental in nature. The purpose of the Article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The Doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (AIR 1982 SC 879), Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., (1986(1)SCC 637) and Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD,(AIR 1986 SC 584). In view of these authorities it is too late in the day to disregard the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of the employment being temporary and the other being permanent in nature. A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a permanent employee.

The respondents contention that the mode of recruitment of petitioners is different from the mode of recruitment of squad teachers inasmuch as the petitioners are appointed locally while squad teachers were selected by the Subordinate Service Selection Board after competing with candidates from any part of the country. Emphasis was laid during argument that if a regular selection was held many of the petitioners may not have been appointed they got the employment because outsiders did not compete. In our opinion, this submission has no merit, Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on the recommendation of a Selection Committee appointed by the Adult Education Department. It is true that the petitioners belong to the locality where they have been posted, but they were appointed only after selection, true that they have not been appointed after selection made by the Subordinate Service Selectio