By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :

(i) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus to punish the respondents for contravention of Article 23 of the Constitution of India in accordance with law.

(ii) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 15 lacs to the petitioner from the respondents.

3. The aforesaid reliefs had been sought by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner, who is duly qualified to be appointed as a teacher (lecturer) in a degree college affiliated to the University and aided by the State Government, had been exploited and forced to work at a meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/= (enhanced to Rs. 8,000) per month.

4. The petitioner applied in pursuance of an advertisement dated 22-4-1998 for appointment on honorarium for the subject of Botany in D.S.A. College, Unnao. He was appointed and joined on 1.8.1998. Since then the petitioner had been working continuously. In addition to teaching work, he has also been looking after the other responsibilities as being In-charge of game etc. The petitioner was paid honorarium at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month upto 10th September, 2006 and subsequent thereto he is getting a sum of Rs. 8,000 per month. The petitioner claims that he had been working under compelling circumstances on meagre salary, such an employment has to be termed as ‘begar’ which is prohibited under the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, respondents should be prosecuted for contravention of the mandate of Article 23 of the Constitution of India and petitioner should be compensated by awarding Rs. 15 lacs as compensation.

4. Sri Vishnu Behari Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the facts of this case the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1983 SC 328 as also the law laid down in Mukesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (1) AWC 221, is squarely applicable and therefore petitioner is entitled for the aforesaid reliefs.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the petition contending that the petitioner has not stated the correct facts leading to his appointment on honorarium, which in fact has been an arrangement under special circumstances. The U.P. Higher Education Service Commission duly constituted under the provisions of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 could not complete the regular selection of teachers for certain reasons. The State Government as a special measure provided for re-employment of retired teachers initially under the Government Order of 1997 on part time basis fixing the remuneration on per lecture basis as prescribed by the University Grants Commission. As sufficient number of retired teachers were not available and some retired teachers were not willing to accept the job, the State Government came with a Government Order dated 17th April, 1998 providing for part time teachers on honorarium basis at the rate of Rs. 100 per lecturer (as prescribed by University Grants Commission) to the maximum of Rs. 5,000 in a month. The said Government Order specifically provides that the appointment would be for a fixed tenure and no renewal was to be granted. Though the Government Order did not put any embargo for such a candidate to apply afresh if the post was advertised for the next session. There was a clear cut stipulation that such appointees would not claim regularization. In such a fact situation, as the remuneration had been fixed on per lecture basis and since the engagement of the petitioner is not a full time basis, there is no obligation upon such person to remain on job after he has delivered the particular lecture as assigned to him by the authority concerned, therefore the engagement of the petitioner cannot be termed as a ‘begar’.

6. It is further contended by learned Standing Counsel that if t