G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. These two petitions can appropriately be disposed of by a common order because they raise an identical question for determination by the Court. Before coming to the legal issue, it is proper to set out a few facts.

2. All the petitioners in the two petitions were appointed in the service of Punjab Roadways as Ticket Verifiers. Of them petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 in Civil Writ Petition No. 9030 of 1988 were regularised with effect from 15.1.1986 while petitioners No. 7 to 11 in the said petition were regularised with effect from 21.3.1986. Two of the thirteen petitioners namely Smt. Narinder Kaur and Smt. Neelam Kumari were! employed as Ticket Verifier on compassionate ground because their husbands had died while in the service of Punjab Roadways. At the time of entry into service; the petitioners were paid as daily wagers and even after regularisation, petitioners No.1 to 11 in CWP No. 9030 of 1988 continued to be paid as daily wagers. The petitioners have claimed that as Ticket Verifier, they have been discharging duties which are identical to the duties being performed by holders of corresponding posts in the service of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and