The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and the justification of relief based on the nature of duties performed and the principles of law applicable.

While ignoring the delay of 210 days in filing this appeal, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits.

2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in the impugned order dated 05.11.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5327 (S/S) of 1993 for the reasons and circumstances indicated infra.

3. The relevant background aspects of the matter are that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) came to be engaged against the post of Junior Engineer (Minor Irrigation) on a fixed salary of Rs. 1600/- per month by an order dated 30.11.1990, issued by the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Lucknow. The order was purportedly issued for the reasons that such post of Junior Engineer (Minor Irrigation) remained vacant and thereby, boring work was being hampered. The engagement of the writ petitioner was, however, sought to be terminated by the order dated 06.07.1993 upon posting of regularly selected Junior Engineer. The writ petitioner challenged the said order dated 06.07.1993 in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 5327 (S/S) of 1993 wherein, by way of the interim order dated 16.07.1993, the operation of the impugned orders was stayed, resulting in the writ petitioner continuously working with the appellants on consolidated salary of Rs. 1600/- per month. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner had also prayed for directions against the present appellants to continue him on the post of Junior Engineer and to pay him salary in the regular pay scale of Junior Engineer in Minor Irrigation Department; and further, to regularize him in the services.

4. In the impugned order dated 05.11.2003, the learned Single Judge of this Court, while relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595 observed that the writ petitioner was engaged against a regular Class IIIrd post and was working since 12 years discharging such functions as discharged by other Class IIIrd regular employees. With these observations, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the writ petition with directions to the present appellants that the writ petitioner would be entitled to minimum of the pay scale of Class IIIrd employee without any increments and other allowances; and further directed that the question of his regular absorption would be considered in accordance with Statutory Rules in case, he came within the field of eligibility.

5. The appellants have filed this appeal on 03.07.2004 questioning the aforesaid order dated 05.11.2003 so passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It is noticed that this appeal was filed 210 days beyond limitation with an application seeking condonation of delay whereupon notices were ordered to be issued on 05.07.2004. This appeal, thereafter, has remained pending in this Court.

6. It has been pointed out during the course of submissions that in the meantime, by an order dated 28.10.2004, the appellants though have allowed payment of Rs. 5000/- per month to the writ petitioner being the lowest in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000/- applicable to the Junior Engineer (Minor Irrigation) but have declined his prayer of regularization. It has also been stated before us during the course of submissions that seeking the relief of regularization, the present respondent has filed another writ petition bearing No. 6219 (S/S) of 2009, that remains pending in this Court.

7. The aspect relating to the claim for regularization being pending in a subsequently filed writ petition, we would not be making any comments in that relation and would leave the matter to be adjudicated in the said writ petition. Thus, the only question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the directions given by the learned Single Judge, of allowing the writ petitioner minimum of the pay scale of C