ORDER P. D. Desai, C. J.— In both these applications, the applicants, who are the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 647 of 1984, have made an identical prayer, namely, to issue interim directions to the respondent-Board to pay to the applicants the wages of Clerks and to regularise their services as Clerks on the establishment of the respondent-Board. The learned Counsel for the applicants states that for the time being the applicant are not seeking any interim directions with respect to their regularisation or the payment to them of wages equal to those paid to regularly appointed Clerks. He submits that at this stage the relief be confined by directing the respondent-Board to forthwith discontinue the invidious discrimination being made in the matter of payment of wages to two artificially created categories of daily-rated workmen who are performing the same duties, namely, (a) the daily-rated workmen who, though employed as T-Mates, are performing the duties of Clerks and are being paid the minimum wages of daily-rated Clerks as notified by the respondent-Board from time to time and (b) the daily-rated workmen employed in the vacant posts of Clerks in the field offices through Employment Exchanges after completing all codal formalities and against sanctions accorded by the Board from time to time. 2. Now, these facts are not in dispute. The applicants were employed as T-Mates on daily wages but they are performing the duties of Clerks They are being paid the minimum wages of daily paid Clerks as notified by the respondent-Board from time to time. Accordingly they are being paid at the rate of Rs. 628.50 per month at present. There are other daily-rated workmen employed by the field offices against the vacant posts of Clerks through Employment Exchanges after completing all the codal formalities and against sanctions accorded by the respondent-Board from time to time who are being paid at a higher rate, namely, Rs. 1062 00 per month at the present. The provisions of the Standing Orders framed by the respondent-Board are applicable to all the daily-rated workmen irrespective of the fact whether or not one is employed through the Employment Exchange. 3. 1062 00 per month at the present. The provisions of the Standing Orders framed by the respondent-Board are applicable to all the daily-rated workmen irrespective of the fact whether or not one is employed through the Employment Exchange. 3. From the admitted facts stated above in respect of these two categories of daily-rated workmen, the distinguishing feature, if any which surfaces is that one set of workmen is employed as T-Mates but is required to perform the duties of Clerks and is actually paid the minimum wages of daily paid Clerks, whereas the other set of workmen is employed against the vacant posts of Clerks through Employment Exchanges after completing all the codal formalities and against proper sanctions is paid at different rates. Although both the sets of workmen are employed on daily-rated basis and are performing the same duties, the first set of workmen is getting paid at a much lower rate than the second category inasmuch as the former is paid at the rate of Rs. 628-50 per month where as the latter at Rs. 1062-00 per month. 4. The Court finds that neither the Central Government nor the State Government makes any distinction in the rates of wages payable to the daily-rated employees performing the same duties, while fixing the minimum rates of wages, on the basis of the source or method of recruitment. In other words, all daily-rated employees performing identical duties in respect of whom minimum rates of wages are fixed are entitled to such wages irrespective of whether the employees have been recruited through the Employment Exchange or otherwise, or whether their employment is made after completing the codal formalities or otherwise. 5. Against the aforesaid background, the Court is unable to discern the rationality of the distinction made in the matter of payment of wages on the basis of the source/method of recruitment, especially when the Board has conceded the claim of the applicants, who are employed as T-Mates on daily wages but who are performing the duties of Clerks, to the payment of minimum wages of daily-rated Clerks as notified by the respondent-Board from time to time. 6. 6. Before the Court considers granting the relief to the applicants, which they are claiming as aforesaid, it is expedient in the interest of justice to afford an opportunity to the respondent-Board to justify the rationality, if any, of the distinction made as aforesaid for the purposes of the payment of wages to these daily-rated workmen on the basis of the source/method of recruitment. The respondent-Board may file a supplementary affidavit placing on record all the relevant facts, if it is so advised, on or before October 14, 1987. 7. To be listed on October 21, 1987. 8. Dasti copy on usual terms. Sd/- P. D. Desai, C. J. September 22, 1987. Sd/- R. S. Thakur, J. Counsels : C. M. P. No. 1116 of 1986: For the applicant-petitioners—-Shri Devinder Gupta, Advocate. For opponent-respondent No. 1—Shri P. A. Sharma, Advocate. For non-applicants-respondents No. 2 and 3-Shri P. N. Nag, Advocate General. ORDER For orders, see the common order of the day passed on C. M. P. No. 1425 of 1985 as well as on this application. Sd/- P. D. Desai, C. J. September 22, 1987 Sd/- R. S. Thakur, J. Counsels : C. M. P. S. No. 1425 and C. M. P. No. 1116 of 1987 in C. W. P. No. 647 of 1984 : For the applicants-Petitioner(s)—Shri Devinder Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent(s)—Shri P. A. Sharma, Advocate, for opponent-respondent No. 1. Shri L. S. Panta, Deputy Advocate General, for opponents-respondents Nos. 2 and 3. JUDGMENT P. D. Desai, C. J.— On behalf of the respondent-Board, an affidavit dated October 16, 1987 has been filed by its Deputy Secretary availing of the opportunity afforded vide order dated September 22, 1987 to justify the rationality, if any, of the distinction made in the matter of payment of wages between certain daily-rated workmen performing the duties of Clerk on the basis of the source/method of their recruitment. 2. In the course of the affidavit aforesaid, it has been pointed out, inter-alia, that in conformity with the minimum wages notified by the State Government, the wages of Clerks and the Non-technical Supervisory Staff have been revised by the respondent-Board to Rs. 26 20 per day Rs. 2. In the course of the affidavit aforesaid, it has been pointed out, inter-alia, that in conformity with the minimum wages notified by the State Government, the wages of Clerks and the Non-technical Supervisory Staff have been revised by the respondent-Board to Rs. 26 20 per day Rs. 786.00 per month vide Office Memo, dated September 2, 1987 (Annexure R-2) and that the revised rates have been made applicable from April 15, 1987 In view of this information now coming forth from the respondent-Board, the order dated September 22, 1987 will have to be read as suitably modified by substituting the figure Rs. 786 per month m place and stead of Rs 6?8 50 per month? wherever reference is therein made to the rate at which wages are paid to the daily-rated T. Mates who are performing the duties of Clerk. 3 On the main issue, namely, the rationality, if any, of the distinction made in the matter of payment of wages between the daily-rated workmen performing the same duties on the basis of the source/method of recruitment, The following factors have been mainly highlighted in the affidavit: (l) As a matter of policy, persons deployed on daily wages as a stop gap arrangement without observing any provisions of rules/ regulations are being paid the minimum wages as notified by the State Government/Board, from time to time for such category of employees ; however, persons employed on daily wages against vacant posts after proper sanctions accorded by the competent authority and after observing all codal formalities are being paid the wages at a higher rate as notified, from time to time, for such category of employees by the State Government/Board ; this so irrespective of whether the functions and duties performed by both categories of workmen are the same or similar. (2) In case the daily-rated T. Mates performing the duties of Clerk ( } by way of a stop gap arrangement are paid the rates of daily wares Clerks who are recruited after proper sections and selections, the daily-rated employees of other trades, who number about 14,000, will also claim the wages as are being 3, the regular employees of their categories which the P indent Board will not be able to pay within the limited resources available to it and the employment of nearly 60 to 70 per cent of such workers deployed on daily wages may have to be discontinued. (3) The respondent-Board was required to engage the services of the petitioner as T. Mater on daily-rated basis and to take from them the services of Clerk in the Consumer Billing Section as a stop-gap arrangement in view of the fact that the Mate Government had imposed a ban on filling up of vacant posts by direct recruitment as a measure of economy ; such work is now continued to be taken from them because this Court has issued directions on July 10, 198, that no change in the conditions of service including the nature and character of the work obtained from the petitioners and persons similarly situate, shall be made during the pendency of the petition save and except with the express permission of this Court and the contrary instructions, if any, issued were directed to be withdrawn forthwith. (4) The respondent-Board has employed the petitioners on daily-rated basis on their verbal requests; they have been neither assured regular employment nor any obstacle has been placed in their way by the respondent. Board to take service elsewhere it is not due to the act of the respondent-Board but due to their own in action to obtain service elsewhere that they are being paid the wages at the rates at which they are receiving them today. 4. Before entering into a consideration of these factors, it would be necessary to recall briefly the various orders passed from time to time during the pendency of this writ petition concerning the point presently under examination and the compliance, if any, thereof by the respondent-Board. 4. Before entering into a consideration of these factors, it would be necessary to recall briefly the various orders passed from time to time during the pendency of this writ petition concerning the point presently under examination and the compliance, if any, thereof by the respondent-Board. Such an exercise is expedient and also necessary to show that even earlier opportunities were afforded to the respondent-Board to bring on a par the wages paid to persons performing the same or similar duties in view of the well entrenched principle of equal pay for equal work. 5. On April 9, 1985, even before the writ petition was admitted, the Court had made the following order on the main petition : "The fact that the petitioner, who were employed as daily rated T. Mates, have been required to perform the duties of Clerks/ Meter Readers/Cashiers/Meter Ledger Clerks in their day-to-day work concerning the running and maintenance of the consumer and billing Sections in the various Sub-Divisions is not in dispute (vide para 8 of the affidavit dated December 31, 1984 filed by the Secretary of the respondent-Board). In other words, the fact that the petitioners actually perform duties of Clerks/Meter Readers/Cashiers/Meter Ledger Clerks although they are daily rated T. Mates is beyond the pale of controversy. Be it stated that the fact that the respondent-Board has on some occasions employed Clerks on daily wages is also not in dispute. It is settled law that having regard to Articles 14 and 16 read in the light of the Preamble and Article 39 (d) of the Constitution, the principle of equal pay for equal work is a basic tenet governing all public employments (See : Randhir Singh v. Union of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 879 and Delhi Veterinary Association v. Union of India and others, AIR 1984 SC 1221). As has been observed in Delhi Veterinary Associations case, apart from being the dominant employer, the State is also expected to be a model employer. Against the aforesaid background, prima-facie, the claim of the petitioners and persons similarly situate to the payment of wages on daily rated basis as Clerks for discharging the duties of Clerks/Meter Readers/Cashiers/Meter Ledger Clerks etc. As has been observed in Delhi Veterinary Associations case, apart from being the dominant employer, the State is also expected to be a model employer. Against the aforesaid background, prima-facie, the claim of the petitioners and persons similarly situate to the payment of wages on daily rated basis as Clerks for discharging the duties of Clerks/Meter Readers/Cashiers/Meter Ledger Clerks etc. is well founded Let the respondent-Board arive at an appropriate decision in this matter within a period of eight weeks from today.” Certain other directions were also issued in the said order and they concerned the framing of a Scheme to offer on a preferential basis regular appointment in the post of Clerks to those of the T. Mates from whom the work of Clerks/Meter Readers/Cashiers/Meter Ledger Clerks had been taken or was being taken. Since we are not concerned with that aspect of the case at the present stage, it is not necessary to extract those directions. 6. The respondent-Board reported compliance to these interim directions vide the affidavit dated October 31, 1985 filed by the its Secretary in CMP No. 2595 of 1985. Para 3 of the said affidavit at page 100 of the CMP file reads as follows : "In compliance to the interim directions of the Honble High Court issued on 9-4-1985, the Board has allowed minimum wages to Matriculate Clerks and other supervisory staff @ Rs. 365.28 paise per month and daily rates to these Clerks who have been recruited against the specific sanction of the Board vide this office order No. 215 dated 29-8-1985 (copy enclosed as Annexure R-III), The rates fixed vide order dated 29-8-1985 will not be allowed to these petitioners as they are not recruited through the Employment Exchanges against the specific sanction of the Board to recruit Clerks on daily wages by the competent authority." 7. The office order, Annexure R-III, referred to in the above-extracted portion of the said affidavit provided for the upward revision of daily wages of such of the Clerks "who are deployed on daily wages against the sanction accorded from this office to the various field offices of the Board" and the revision was made applicable with effect from the date of the issue of those orders, that is, on and from August 22, 1985. 8. 8. On a combined reading of para 3 of the extracted portion of the affidavit and Annexure R-III thereto, it is apparent that the respondent- Board introduced a different and a higher scale of daily wages in respect of the daily paid Clerks, who were appointed in pursuance of the sanction accorded by the Head Office to the various field offices of the respondent- Board, but denied the benefit of such revision to the petitioners and persons similarly situate, who were admittedly performing the duties of Clerks/ Meter Readers/Cashiers/Meter Ledger Clerks, although they were employed as daily-rated T. Mates. 9. It would be pertinent to point out at this stage that the matter relating to the payment of daily wages to the daily rated Clerks employed by the respondent-Board on the same basis as the daily wages paid by the State Government to their daily-rated Clerks appears to have been independently under consideration of the respondent-Board pursuant to a demand of that nature having been raised for the consideration of the respondent- Board by the HPSEB Employees Union. The consideration of such demand appears to have started sometime in the first or second quarter of 1985. The proposal under consideration, at one stage, appears to have been to make payment of daily wages to all the daily-rated Clerks on the same basis as the daily wages paid by the State Government to the Clerks employed by them on daily-rated basis. Subsequently, however, it appears to have been proposed to the Whole-time Members of the respondent-Board to allow such benefit only in the following terms (page 158 of the main petition). "The proposal to allow the daily rated Clerks engaged in our Board with specific designation as Clerks, the rates of daily remuneration as prescribed by H. P. Government vide their letter dated 26th February 1985 (page 404), is submitted for approval of whole Time Members/Chairman by circulation. These rates will be applicable to those who have been engaged as Clerk etc. with the specific approval of the competent authority in the Board and will be applicable from the date of its notification by the State Government please or alternatively from the date of approval of the Board." The whole time members approved the proposal aforesaid on or about August 25, 1985. with the specific approval of the competent authority in the Board and will be applicable from the date of its notification by the State Government please or alternatively from the date of approval of the Board." The whole time members approved the proposal aforesaid on or about August 25, 1985. The office order above mentioned dated August 29, 1985 Annexure R-III, appears to have been issued pursuant to the above-mentioned decision. The record and proceedings of the respondent-Board pertaining to the decision abovementioned are on the record of the m3in petition at Annexure-L (pages 154 to 158). 10. When the abovementioned decision of the respondent-Board was brought to the notice of the Court, yet another interim order was passed on the main petition on November 29, 1985 which reads as follows : "The decision dated August 29, 1985 Annexure R-III, of the respondent-Board does not appear to comply with the interim directions issued by this Court on April 9, 1985 insofar as it concerns the revision of the daily wages of the petitioners and persons similarly situate, if any, who are admittedly performing the duties of Clerks/Meter Readers/Cashiers/Meter Ledger Clerks although they are deployed as daily-rated T Mates. Paras 1 and 2 of the interim order dated April 9, 1985 are a definite pointer in the direction that to obtain from the petitioners and persons similarly situate, if any, the work of Clerks/ Meter Readers/Cashiers/Meter Ledger Clerks, even while they are employed as daily-rated T. Mates, and not to pay them at the rate at which the daily-rated Clerks/Meter Readers/Cashiers/ Meter Ledger Clerks are paid, may tantamount to the violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 16 and 23 of the Constitution and the undermining of the Directive Principle of the State Policy enshrined in Article 39 (d) of the Constitution. Under the circumstances, the respondent-Board is given one more opportunity to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and in light of the observations made herein-above as well as in the interim order dated April 9, 1985 in regard to the revision of the daily-wages payable to the petitioners and persons similarly situate, if any, by bringing their wages in line with the wages of the daily-rated Clerks fixed as per the decision of the respondent Board dated August 29 1985, Annexure R-III. The Court wishes to clarify that payment to the petitioners and persons similarly situate, if any, of daily wages at the same rate at which such wages are paid to the daily-rated Clerks would not confer upon the petitioners and persons similarly situate, if any, the status of daily-rated Clerks. The fresh decision of the respondent-Board to be placed on the record of the case on or before December 18, 1985." 11. The respondent-Board through its Secretary reported compliance to these orders vide affidavit dated January 4, 1986 as follows (See pages 113 to 115 of the main petition) : "3. It is respectfully submitted that the directions contained in the interim orders dated 9th April, 1985 stand already complied with and the petitioners and persons similarly situate have already been allowed the revision of minimum rates of wages viz. Rs. 365.28 paise per month on the pattern of H. P. State Government as also mentioned in the order itself. In this connection Annexure R/I to the reply affidavit of Respondent Board in CMP 2595 of 1985 may kindly be referred to. In so far as the second portion of the orders of the Honble High Court dated November 29, 1985 relating to payment of wages as notified in Respondent Boards order dated 29-8-1985 is concerned it is respectfully submitted that the Honble High Court vide order dated 5th December, 1984 restrained the Respondent-Board for making regular appointments pending decision of the instant CWP. In view of this, the Board in order to carry on the day-to-day work, which cannot be left unattended, has in some cases accorded sanctions to field units to deploy Clerks, Meter Ledger Clerks/Meter Readers/Cashiers on daily wages with the specific condition that the deployment of such persons should only be done by observing the requisite codal formalities such as compliance of provisions contained in Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for recruitment of Clerks/MLCs/MRs/Cashiers (copy Annexure-R/XII) and notification of vacancies to Employment Exchanges as is required under Compulsory Notification of Vacancies Act. This was all the more necessary as the powers to recruit personnel against the posts of Clerks/ MLCs/Meter Readers/Cashiers are exclusively vested with the Secretary of the respondent-Board, within the meaning of existing Recruitment and Promotion Regulations of HPSEB Ministerial Services. Besides, the cadre of this category of staff is also maintained at the Board s level. This was all the more necessary as the powers to recruit personnel against the posts of Clerks/ MLCs/Meter Readers/Cashiers are exclusively vested with the Secretary of the respondent-Board, within the meaning of existing Recruitment and Promotion Regulations of HPSEB Ministerial Services. Besides, the cadre of this category of staff is also maintained at the Board s level. The subsequent regularisation of such recruited persons, if decided by the respondent-Board at a later stage, will naturally be the responsibility of the latter. 4. For the foregoing reasons it is respectfully submitted that the decision of the Board dated 29-81985 (Annexure R-HI) cannot possibly be applied to the petitioners, thus their claim to the wages stipulated in Annexure R-III is not tenable at all Having regard to the rules and codal formalities, which bind the respondent-Board, the maximum relief admissible to the petitioners has been given by the Board by fixing their minimum wage at Rs. 365.28 paise per month vide Annexure R-I." 12. In view of the stand taken by the respondent Board as aforesaid, despite two opportunities having been granted to them, the writ petition was admitted on January 8, 1986 and it was directed to be heard on March 24, 19S6. However, due to the constraint of time and the limited Judge strength, the Court has not been able to finally hear the case. 13. Upon the request of the petitioners, these two Civil Miscellaneous Petitions were taken up for hearing and a common order was passed on September 22, 1987 giving an opportunity to the respondent-Board to justify the rationality, if any, of the distinction made in the matter of payment of wages between the two artificially created categories of daily-rated workmen who are performing the came duties, namely, (a) the daily-rated workmen who, though employed as T. Mates, are performing the duties of Clerks and are being paid the minimum wages of daily-rated Clerks as notified by the respondent-Board from time to time (presently Rs. 786 per month) and (b) the daily-rated workmen employed against the vacant posts of Clerks in the field offices through Employment Exchanges after completing all codal formalities and against sanctions accorded by the Board from time to time who are being paid at a higher rate, namely, Rs. 1062.00 per month at present. 786 per month) and (b) the daily-rated workmen employed against the vacant posts of Clerks in the field offices through Employment Exchanges after completing all codal formalities and against sanctions accorded by the Board from time to time who are being paid at a higher rate, namely, Rs. 1062.00 per month at present. It will be seen from the affidavit dated October 16, 1987 filed by the Deputy Secretary of the respondent-Board in pursuance of the order abovementioned that the respondent-Board is persisting in its plea that there is justification in making payment at different rates to these two categories of workmen. 14. The view expressed by the Court in the Course of its order dated September 22, 1987 that it was not possible to discern the rationality of the discrimination made in the matter of payment of wages to these two artificially created categories of workmen who are performing the same functions and duties on the basis of the source/method of their recruitment finds ample support in a recent decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1987 (2) SCALE 160. In that case, 102 petitioners, who were appointed as Supervisors by a competent Selection Committee constituted by the Education Department of the State of Haryana, instituted a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution complaining, inter-alia, that though they performed their duties as Supervisors in the Education Department and were discharging the same functions and duties as was being done by their counter-parts, who were also Supervisors in the Education Department and who were absorbed as regular Government servants, the remuneration paid to them was less than that paid to their such counter-parts. The relevant relief which they, therefore, sought was that they should be granted the pay-scales applicable to their counter-parts in regular cadres discharging similar duties instead of a fixed salary. The grant of relief was resisted on behalf of the State of Haryana on the grounds, inter-alia, that the mode of recruitment of the petitioners was different from the mode of recruitment of their counterparts and that their appointment was made on six monthly basis in posts which were sanctioned from year to year in view of the temporary nature of the scheme. As to the difference in the mode of recruitment, the precise submission was that the Supervisors appointed in regular posts were whole-time employees selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board after competing with candidates from any part of the country whereas, in the case of the petitioners, the selection was at best limited normally to the candidates from the cluster of a few villages only. This contention was repelled in the following words : "Assuming that the selection of the petitioners has been limited to the cluster of a few villages, whereas Respondents 2 to 6 were selected by another mode wherein they had faced competition from candidates from all over the country, we need not examine the merits of these modes for the very good reason that once the nature and functions and the work are not shown to be dissimilar the fact that the recruitment was made in one way or the other would hardly be relevant from the point of view of "Equal pay for equal work doctrine..........Be that as it may, so long as She petitioners are doing work which is similar to the work performed by respondents No. 2 to 6, from the stand point of Equal work for equal pay doctrine, the petitioners cannot be discriminated against in regard to pay scales. Whether equal work is put in by a candidate, selected by a process whereat candidates from all parts of the country could have competed or whether they are selected by a process where candidates from only a cluster of a few villages could have completed, is altogether irrelevant and immaterial, for the purposes of the applicability Equal work for equal pay doctrine. A typist doing similar work as another typist cannot be denied equal pay on the ground that the process of selection was different inasmuch as ultimately the work done is similar and there is no rational ground to refuse equal pay for equal work. It is quite possible that if he had to compete with candidates from all over the country, he might or might not have been selected. It would be easier for him to be selected when the selection is limited to a cluster of a few villages. That, however, is altogether a different matter. It is quite possible that if he had to compete with candidates from all over the country, he might or might not have been selected. It would be easier for him to be selected when the selection is limited to a cluster of a few villages. That, however, is altogether a different matter. It is possible that he might not have been selected at all if he had to compete against candidates from all over the country. But once he is selected, whether he is selected by one process or the other, he cannot be denied equal pay for equal work without violating the said doctrine." (Underlining supplied). The other submission as to the temporary nature of the scheme was also found unacceptable for the following reason : "We are unable to comprehend how this factor can be invoked for violating Equal pay for equal work doctrine. Whether appointments are for temporary periods and the Schemes are temporary in nature is irrelevant once it is shown that the nature of the duties and functions discharged and the work done is similar and the doctrine of Equal pay for equal work is attracted." 15. The principle which emerges from the decision in Bhagwan Dasss case is that factors such as the mode or method of recruitment or the employment for specified periods on temporary projects are not the valid criteria for the classification of employees for the purpose of payment of wages at different rates. The decision furnishes a complete answer to the contention advanced by the respondent-Board that there is valid justification for the payment of daily wages at different rates to the petitioners, who are employed as T. Mates on daily wages but who are performing the duties of Clerks, on one hand, and to the employees who have been recruited on daily rated basis through the Employment Exchanges after completing the codal formalities against the vacant posts of Clerks, on the other. The difference, if any, in Bhagwan Dasss case and in the present case is that in the former all the employees were given employment after due selection whereas in this case some Have and some have not been so selected. However, such difference does not make for a real distinction. The difference, if any, in Bhagwan Dasss case and in the present case is that in the former all the employees were given employment after due selection whereas in this case some Have and some have not been so selected. However, such difference does not make for a real distinction. It cannot detract from or dilute the applicability of the basic principle on which the said decision rests, namely, that the fact that the recruitment was made in one way or the other or on regular or tenure posts would hardly be relevant for the purpose of equal pay for equal work doctrine, if the work performed is the same. It is, therefore, not possible to up-hold the discrimination in the matter of payment of wages made by the respondent-Board on such or similar basis. 16. The submission that thousands of daily-rated workmen are employed by the respondent-Board and that the employment of nearly 60 to 70 per cent of those workmen may have to be discontinued if they are to be paid the wages of regular employees doing similar work since the respondent-Board would not be able to meet the additional expenses within the limited available resources cannot be pleaded to justify the denial of the benefit of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work to the petitioners and persons similarly situate. Financial constraint is no answer to legally well founded claims advanced by employees. Resources have to be created or found, if the generation of additional finance is necessary, and economy, it required, has to be effected by pruning avoidable expenditure in order to satisfy their constitutionally consecrated and judicially vindicated claims. It is significant to observe in this connection that the activities of the respondent-Board have expanded in the last decade and that at the higher levels many posts carrying high pay-scales have been created. According to the information supplied to the Court, three Chief Engineers were in the employment of the respondent-Board in the year 1979 whereas by the current year their strength has swelled to eleven. The strength of other categories of employees has also admittedly increased during this period. According to the information supplied to the Court, three Chief Engineers were in the employment of the respondent-Board in the year 1979 whereas by the current year their strength has swelled to eleven. The strength of other categories of employees has also admittedly increased during this period. Since the Board could find finances for creating and feeding those posts, it does not lie in its month to plead that the financial constraints do not permit the payment of due wages to the low-paid employees who have been working for years on daily wages. The exploitation of workmen who have no option but to accept employment under a dominant employer on any terms which he may offer is becoming a rare phenomenon even in the organised private sector. It is reprehensible to find its existence in the public sector. The plea that the Board may have to discontinue the employment of 60 to 70 per cent of its 14,000 daily-rated employees if the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is enforced has no validity and is also to some extent misconceived lake the cadre of Clerks for example. The Court has been informed by the respondent-Board that in the year 1984 there were 2441 total sanctioned posts of Clerks out of which 1026 posts were vacant. At present there are 2542 sanctioned posts of Clerks out of which 1377 are vacant. As against these vacant posts, only 1077 employees are performing the duties of Clerks on daily wages. This means that the respondent-Board has the requirement of and the finances available with it to employ 1377 persons in the vacant posts of Clerks. If this is so, it is difficult to understand how any daily rated employee, who is performing the duties of Clerk, can be legitimately laid off or retrenched or denied the benefit of wages due in accordance with law for want of funds. At least with this category of daily-rated employees, there would be no justification whatever for discontinuance of their employment on the specious ground of want or constraint of funds. 17. At least with this category of daily-rated employees, there would be no justification whatever for discontinuance of their employment on the specious ground of want or constraint of funds. 17. The fact that the petitioners and persons similarly situate have been engaged on daily rated basis and the work of Clerks is being taken from them as a stop-gap arrangement because of the ban imposed by the State Government or the interim orders issued by the Court is not material or relevant so far as the applicability of the rule-of equal pay for equal work is concerned. This submission is on a par with the contention discussed earlier emphasising the difference in the mode of recruitment and it deserves outright rejection for the same reasons. The circumstances under which the employment is offered or a particular kind of work is obtained is not a material factor, if there is similarity otherwise in the performance of duties. 18. The submission that the respondent-Board has employed the petitioners on daily rated basis on their verbal request, that they have been neither assured regular employment nor any obstacle has been placed in their way to take up service elsewhere and that it is due to their own inability to obtain other employment that they are getting the wages at the present rates ought not really to have found place in the affidavit of the respondent-Board. One could have contemplated a die-hard private employer coming far ward with such a plea but such defence ill-comes from the mouth of the respondent-Board, which is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and which has always to function as a model and an enlightened employer. The Court legitimately expects that it will not have to countenance a defence of this nature in any similar case in future. The Court legitimately expects that it will not have to countenance a defence of this nature in any similar case in future. The following observations in Dhirendra Chamoli and another v State of U. P. (1986) 1 SCC 637, where a similar submission was made reply to a plea of the casual workmen that they be paid the same salary and allowances as paid to the regular employees, may be aptly quoted in this connection i "It is peculiar on the part of the Central Government to urge that these persons took up employment with the Nehru Yuvak Kendras knowing fully well that they will be paid only daily wages and therefore they cannot claim more This argument lies ill in the mouth of the Central Government for it is an" all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemployment the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and considerations of services 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..... It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees.” In a more recent decision which is yet to be reported but a text whereof has been made available to the Court, Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P and T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v Union of India and others, Writ Petition No. 373 of 1986 and Writ Petition No 302 of 1986 decided on October 27, 1987 an argument Somewhat similar nature in reply to a claim for equal pay for equal work was Sled in the following words: "We are of the view that such denial amounts to exploitation rtf labour. The Government cannot take advantage of dominant position, and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starving wages. It may be that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages. That he has done because he has no other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that State. The Government should be a model employer. We are of the view that on facts and in the circumstances of this case the classification of employees into regularly recruited employees and casual employees for the purpose of paying less than the minimum pay payable to employees in the corresponding regular cadres particularly in the lowest rungs of the department where the pay scales are the lowest is not tenable." The submission, therefore, deserves summary rejection. 19. The question then is as to the relief to which the petitioners are entitled. The respondent-Board has issued three office orders notifying the grant of daily rates in different places of the State for daily wages Clerks employed by the field offices against sanctions accorded from time to time and recruited through the Employment Exchanges after complying with all the codal formalities. Those office orders are as follows : 1. Office order No. 215-HPSEB (SECTT)/85, dated August 29, 1985 (Page 140 of the main petition). 2. Office order No. 304-HPSEB (SECTT) 85, dated December 9, 1985 (Page 141 of the main petition). 3. Office order No. 149-HPSEB (SECTT) 87, dated July 22, 1987 (Page 50 of CMP No. 1116 of 1986). Each one of these successive office orders has made an upward revision of daily wages payable to the daily-rated Clerks who were employed as aforesaid against sanctions accorded from time to time and after completing the codal formalities. Having regard to the findings recorded as aforesaid, the Court directs as follows : (1) The petitioners and persons similarly situate, that is, daily-rated workmen who, although employed as T. Mates, are performing the duties of Clerks, Meter Readers, Meter Ledger Clerks etc. Having regard to the findings recorded as aforesaid, the Court directs as follows : (1) The petitioners and persons similarly situate, that is, daily-rated workmen who, although employed as T. Mates, are performing the duties of Clerks, Meter Readers, Meter Ledger Clerks etc. and who are being paid the minimum wages of Clerks as notified by the respondent-Board from time to lime shall be entitled to the payment of daily wages at the same rate at which such wages are paid to the daily rated workmen employed against the vacant posts of Clerks in the field offices after completing all the codal formalities and against sanctions accorded by the respondent. Board from time to time. In other words, the daily wages as allowed by the three office orders abovementioned will be admissible to the petitioners and persons similarly situate on and from the dates from which such wages at higher scales were granted to the workmen covered by those orders. (2) The amount representing the difference in wages computed as per the present order shall be paid to each of the petitioners and persons similarly situate on or before February 29, 1988. In case the amount of difference in wages cannot be computed and paid within the time-limit granted by this order for reasons beyond the control of the respondent-Board, provisional or approximate circulations will be made and payment will be made on such basis subject to final adjustment within the extended time-limit for which .an application supported by reasons will be moved before the expiry of the aforesaid time-limit. All earlier orders issued by this Court which are or may appear to run counter to these directions stand superseded. (3) The daily wages for the month of November, 1987, payable in the first week of December, 1987, and the daily wages for the succeeding months will now be paid in conformity with these directions. (4) No displeasure will be shown towards the petitioners who have approached this Court in order to vindicate their right to claim equal wages and their employment will not be terminated on the ground that no funds are available in view of the finding recorded earlier with respect to the number of sanctioned posts of Clerks which are lying vacant as against the number of daily- rated employees who are performing the duties of Clerks. The Court wishes to clarify that the grant of this interim relief does not preclude the petitioners and persons similarly situate from claiming the reliefs prayed in the main petition and, more particularly, claiming the relief by way of interim or final order to the effect that their daily-wages should be at per with or equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay-scale of the regularly Clerks on the establishment of the respondent-Board, 20. Dasti copy on usual terms. Order accordingly.