The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of equal pay for equal work may not be directly applicable in cases where the employment is in a government-aided institution, and the court's authority is limited to directing the consideration of representations for regularisation.

The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent dated 20.04.2000 made in his Proceedings N.Dis.No.4787/Aa 2/2000, quash the same and to direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner since 1968 and fix the petitioner's salary on time scale of pay in par with other IV Categories as per the orders of the 6th Pay Commissioner and pay arrears of back wages with bank interest within three months.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner is working as part time Sweeper in the fourth respondent school from 1966 onwards and she was originally paid Rs.55/- per month and presently, she is getting Rs.400/- from the Government and Rs.600/-from the fourth respondent-management. The petitioner gave representations to the fourth respondent to regularise her services and to pay the regular pay scale and the fourth respondent in turn wrote to the third respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner. The respondents sent a communication seeking certain particulars from the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent school has also sent the particulars. Inspite of repeated requests and representations, the petitioner's service is not at all regularised. Hence the above writ petition.

3. From the typed set of papers filed along with the petition, it is seen that the petitioner has made representation on 29.08.1991 to the school to the effect that persons appointed subsequent to the petitioner were regularised and their services were confirmed whereas this petitioner has not been regularised and she requested for regularisation of her service. The Inspector of Schools for girls in its letter dated 11.12.1991 requested the fourth respondent to send her comments to the letter written by the petitioner and the fourth respondent has sent reports recommending the petitioner to be absorbed in the regular pay scale. There are number of communications between the fourth respondent and the respondents requesting to regularise the services of the petitioner. Inspite of that no order has been passed so far.

4. No counter has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3 inspite of repeated adjournments, and this Court on 29.09.2003 passed an order as follows:

" Inspite of specific order to file counter, the respondents have not filed counter. A week's time is granted to file counter. If no counter is filed, orders will be passed on merits without waiting any more for the counter to be filed by the respondent. Post next."

Even after that, no counter has been fled by the respondents.

5. The fourth respondent-School has filed a counter stating that the petitioner was given an adhoc payment by way of remuneration every month, which has been increased periodically and at present a sum of Rs.335/-per month is given by the Government to the petitioner. Apart from that the petitioner gets the annual Pongal Bonus as stipulated by the Government. The fourth respondent further submitted that the School is making all efforts and also made request to the Government to appoint the petitioner as a full-time employee and the fourth respondent also requested the Court to pass suitable orders.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the communications along with the communications in which the date seal is found as 3.9.1964 which shows the strength of the staff of the fourth respondent school in that"other-servants"category,Sweeper-cum-Gardener, Watchman, Gardener, Scavenger part time are referred to and their wages were stated not exceeding Rs.55/- a month for a part time servant. Relying upon the said letter, learned counsel submitted that the post in which the petitioner is holding has been sanctioned by the Government and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in that post. But this communication does not show that it is a full time post. There is a specific direc