A.K. MATHUR, J.—The petitioners by this writ petition have prayed that by a writ of mandamus the respondents be directed to pay the petitioners the same pay as is paid to the persons belonging to their cadre.

2. The petitioners are working on the post of L. D. Cs. in various offices of the State of Rajasthan in Udaipur District, but they are not paid the regular pay scale of L.D.C. However, they have been paid a sum of Rs. 15/- per day as daily rates workers, The grievance of the petitioners is that other persons who are working on the post of L. D. Cs. they are getting the regular pay scale of L. D. C. whereas the petitioners are only paid daily wages at the rate of Rs. 15/-per day though they are performing the same duties as other L. D. Cs. who are working in the office are performing. But they are paid in the pay scale of Rs. 880-1680 Therefore, the petitioners grievance is that on the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined in Art. 39(d) of the Constitution of India they must be paid the same wages as is paid to the L. D. Cs. working in the various offices of the Collectorate Udaipur.

3. A return has been filed by the respondents and the only plea taken was that these petitioners have accepted the appointment on the basis of daily wages at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day. It has further been submitted that these persons form one class whereas other persons who have been selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission form another class. Therefore, a distinction is sought to be made that the regularly selected candidates by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission are paid regular pay and these persons have been paid at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day as daily wages employees. It is not disputed that both class of L. D. Cs. are discharging the same duties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P&T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch vs Union of India (1) and U. P. Income — Tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association vs. Union of India (2).

5. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties. It is undisputed fact that both the L. D. Cs. are discharging the same functions and Article 39(d) of the Constitution lays down that for equal work equal pay should be paid, It is true that these petitioners have not been regularly selected, but nonetheless they are discharging the same functions as are being discharged by the regularly selected candidates of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.

6. In Daily Rated Casual Labours case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that the State cannot deny at least the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen even though the Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees. Such denial amounts to exploitation of labour. The Government cannot take advantage of its dominant position, and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starvation wages. It may be that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages. But he does so because he has no other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that state. The Government should be a model employer.

7. A similar view has been taken by this court at Jaipur Bench in Madan Lal Sharma vs. The State of Rajasthan and two others (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 585 of 1987 decided on July 13, 1987). In view of the legal position which has been crystallised that equal pay for equal work is a social necessity of time and Government as a model employer should be fair and should not discriminate amongst the employees who are discharging the similar duties. Therefore, all these petitioner L. D. Cs. are entitled to the minimum pay together with D. A. as is paid to the regularly recruited L. D. Cs.

8. The next question which arises for consideration is that from what date they are entitled to. In Daily Rated Casual Labours case (supra) their Lordsh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document