JUDGMENT SUDHIR RANJAN ROY, J. 1. THE petitioners Nos.2 to 14, all ad-hoc Homoeopathic Medical Officers in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, who started their service life in 1973 at a consolidated monthly emolument of Rs.250/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.425/- per month, have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in quest of a scale of pay after having tried their luck abortively at departmental levels and then at the doors of the State Pay Commission. 2. THE unfortunate part of the story is that they failed to get themselves regularised through Public Service Commission and it is actually their adhocism' which has so long stood as a barrier between their consolidated pay and a pay scale worth the name. THEy are performing the same duties and functions as their luckier regularised] counterparts who are enjoying a pay scale but it is sheer 'adhocism' which has made their cry for equal pay, a cry in the wilderness. As the last resort the petitioners are now in the Writ Court; their demand being a proper pay scale with effect from the date of the Pay Commission's Report, 1981, i.e. April 1,1981. The, respondents oppose the claim by filing an affidavit in opposition. 3. MR. Pal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended before me that the refusal of the State Government to grant a scale of pay to the petitioners in discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution since different other employees of the Government of identical and inferior stature have been granted regular scale of pay. He further contended that the policy of 'adhocism' for long periods may lead to automatic breach of Articles 14 and 16. 'Equal pay for equal work' according to MR. Pal, is now a well-settled principle and is implicit in Article 14 of the Constitution. And since the petitioners are rendering service of identical value as the regularised Homoeopathic Medical Officers; who have been given a scale of pay, at least the said scale cannot be denied to the petitioners. 4. MR. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, seriously controverted the contentions raised by MR. And since the petitioners are rendering service of identical value as the regularised Homoeopathic Medical Officers; who have been given a scale of pay, at least the said scale cannot be denied to the petitioners. 4. MR. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, seriously controverted the contentions raised by MR. Pal and submitted that the petitioners being merely ad-hoc employees; yet to be regularised through the Public Service Commission, are not entitled to scale of pay particularly when they accepted the ad-hoc employments with full knowledge that they were to work on fixed emoluments. Coming now to the rival contentions of the parties, it is not disputed that the [petitioners Nos.2 to 14 who are qualified Homoeopaths, joined as Homoeopathic Medical Officers in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal on ad-hoc basis as far back as the year 1973 on a fixed pay of Rs.250/- per month which was subsequently revised and fixed at Rs.425/- per month. They have neither been given any scale nor are any allowances admissible to them. 5. IT is also nor disputed that such ad-hoc Officers are required to be regularised through the Public Service Commission and on such regularisation they are given a regular scale of pay (Vide paragraph 8 of the supplementary affidavit dated March 7, 1986 filed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and annexure 'G' thereto) and that the petitioners Nos.2 to 14 are yet to be regularised as such. They appeared before the Public Service Commission but failed to get themselves through and as such, still continue to be on ad-hoc basis. 6. AFTER hearing Mr. Mukherjee, the leaned Advocate representing the respondents, it appears that it is actually the non-regularisation of the petitioners which stands on their way of getting a regular scale. Mr. Pal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, controverted this stand of the respondents on the different grounds. 7. HIS first contention was; that it was discriminatory since it is not only other ad-hoc Medical Officers who have been given regular scales such scales have also been given to employees much inferior in rank and status. 8. THE second contention of Mr. 7. HIS first contention was; that it was discriminatory since it is not only other ad-hoc Medical Officers who have been given regular scales such scales have also been given to employees much inferior in rank and status. 8. THE second contention of Mr. Pal in this regard was that the policy of adhocism clearly violates Article 14 of the Constitution since it is implic in the said article, that there should be equal pay for equal work, the status of the employee being totally irrelevant. Coming to the first point first, Mr. Pal in support of his contention referred me to Annexure. 'B' to the affidavit in reply dated April 3, 1984 at page 23. The said annexure relates to the appointment of certain Allopathic Medical Officers by the State on ad-hoc basis (Vide paragraphs 3 and 7 of the annexure). It shows that the said Officers were given a regular scale of pay subject to their being regularly selected by the Public Service Commission. He also referred me to another such Government notification at page 32 of the said affidavit in reply. 9. MR. Pal also referred me to annexure 'G' to the writ petition (at page 5 3) which shows that even daily rated contingency workers were given regular pay scales by the Government. 10. IT is, as such, clear that adhocism by itself, was not considered to be a ground even by the Government to refuse a regular pay scale to its Medical officers. The fact that these Officers are Allopaths should not, in my view, make any difference since the Homoeopaths are also Medical officers like them. That being so, the refusal by the Government to allow a pay scale to the petitioners Nos.2 to 14 on the ground that they are ad-hoc employees, should be held to be discriminatory and as such, violative of the Constitutional provisions. 11. SO far Mr. Pal's next contention is concerned there seems to be no dispute on the point that the ad-hoc Homeopathic Medical Officers, as the petitioners are, discharge the same duties as their regularised counterparts. And as already seen, the regularised Officers are given a regular scale of pay. 12. THE question is whether the petitioners can be denied a similar scale of pay simply because they are ad-hoc officers yet to be regularised though they are performing similar duties, as the regularised officers. And as already seen, the regularised Officers are given a regular scale of pay. 12. THE question is whether the petitioners can be denied a similar scale of pay simply because they are ad-hoc officers yet to be regularised though they are performing similar duties, as the regularised officers. The point whether there should be equal pay for equal work came up for consideration before the. Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1962) 1S.C. C. 618. There the question arose whether the drivers in the Delhi Police Force who performed the same functions and duties as drivers in the Delhi Administration and the Central Government were entitled, to the same scale of pay. Overruling the argument advanced by the respondents that the drivers of the Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belonged to different departments and that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', is not a principle which the Courts may recognize and act upon. The Supreme Court held that there was no reason for giving the drivers of the Delhi Police Force a lower scale, of pay than others. 13. THE view same was taken by the Supreme Court in Bhirendra Chandi and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1986) 1 SCC 637 . It was held in that case that implicit in Article 14 of the Constitution was the principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value. THEre the question was whether the casual employees who performed the same duties as were performed by class IV employees appointed on regular, basis against sanctioned posts, could claim the same salary, and' conditions of service. THE question was answered in the affirmative. THE Supreme Court observed that the fact that the casual employees. accepted employment with full knowledge that, they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 14. THE Supreme Court also took similar view of the matter in Surindar Singh and Anr. vs. Engineer in Chief, C.P.W.D. :(1986). 1 SCC 639. In Rattan Lal and Ors. 14. THE Supreme Court also took similar view of the matter in Surindar Singh and Anr. vs. Engineer in Chief, C.P.W.D. :(1986). 1 SCC 639. In Rattan Lal and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors.(1986 1 L L J 23, the Supreme Court while considering the case of some adhoc teachers observed that the policy of 'adhocism' followed by the State Government for a long period had led to the breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 15. THERE is no doubt that depriving the adhoc employees of equal financial benefit with their regularised counterparts inspite of their performing the same functions and duties. amounts to their naked exploitation which can heardly be excepted from a Government committed to socialism. ' ; 16. IT is immaterial what the status of such employees is, so long they perform the same duties as the regularised employees. They may not be regularised automatically but there can be no reason to deny then equal pay for equal work. Non regularisation has its awn hazards since an ad-hoc employee has no right to his post and can be thrown out at any time. But a denial of equal pay to them for equal work so long they continue to be in service, by expoliting their helpless situation in the background of acute unemployment in the country, cannot at least be expected from the State, which according to the Supreme Court should set example as a model employer. 17. SO far the petitioners nos. 2 to 14 are concerned, it is must unfortunate that since their joining in 1973 they have been denied a scale of pay inspite of their having the same qualification as their regularised counterparts and their performing the same functions and duties, simply because they have somehow to get themselves regularised. They started at a pay of Rs.250/- per month which subsequently was revised to Rs 425/- per month. And this, if I am correct, is even less than the total monthly emolument of a senior class IV employee and many other employees of such inferior status as Annexure 'G' to the writ petition will show. 18. DESPERATE representations made by the petitioners to grant them a scale of pay failed to evoke any sympathy from any quarter and even the State Pay Commission remained indifferent to their most legitimate demand. 18. DESPERATE representations made by the petitioners to grant them a scale of pay failed to evoke any sympathy from any quarter and even the State Pay Commission remained indifferent to their most legitimate demand. However, in view of what has been stated earlier, there can be no reason for refusing the petitioners a proper scale of pay. 19. THE respondents are, accordingly, directed to give the petitioners nos. 2 to 14 a proper scale of pay according to law with effect from the date of the award of the Pay Commission's Report, that is, with effect from April 1, 1981 and fix them in the said scale as per the existing rules. 20. THIS should be done positively within sixty days from the date of this order and within a further period of sixty days therefore the petitioners should be paid ail their arrears. The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the respondent no. 1 within a period of 10 days from this date at the cost of the petitioners. Rule made absolute.