JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - This and the companion writ petition of Anil Kumar Singh raise the same controversy and, therefore, the two petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. In the instant petition, there are four petitioners. The petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 were appointed as Class IV employees on daily wages. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner No. 4 too was appointed on daily wages. However, it is clear that the petitioner No 4 was given a temporary appointment. The sale petitioner Anil Kumar Singh too was employed as a class IV employee on daily wages. In both the petitions, in substance, two prayers have been made. First, a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners as Class IV employees. Secondly, the respondents should be directed to pay to the petitioners the same wages which were then paid by them to the regularly appointed Class IV employees. 3. So far as the first prayer is concerned, in the counter-affidavit filed by and on behalf of the State in instant petition, the averments made are these. Prior to 30th May, 1987, one Dr Srivastava was the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi. He made appointments of Class IV employees against the existing Rules and Government Orders issued from time to time. He even made appointments at dispensaries which were not in existence. He made appointments even though there was no need to make any appointment preceding him one Dr. L. N. Singh also made illegal appointments on daily wages. The two doctors in collusion made 7 to 8 appointments. There were no posts for making any appointment. When these facts came to light, the Chief Medical Officer. Varanasi, terminated the services of the fore mentioned appointees. In view of these averments it will be difficult, if not impossible, for this Court to give a direction as prayed for. No doubt, the petitioners have asserted that they were appointed in existing vacancies and on existing posts. Be that as it may, basically some questions of fact have to be investigated and findings recorded. In our opinion the proper form for the petitioners is the U.P. Public Service Tribunal where the petitioners can prefer claim petitions. 4. No doubt, the petitioners have asserted that they were appointed in existing vacancies and on existing posts. Be that as it may, basically some questions of fact have to be investigated and findings recorded. In our opinion the proper form for the petitioners is the U.P. Public Service Tribunal where the petitioners can prefer claim petitions. 4. We, therefore, do not consider it a fit case for interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in so far as the first relief is concerned. 5. Regarding the second relief the material facts are these. The petitioner No. 1 was employed on daily wages between 2nd September, 1986 and 23rd April, 1987, the petitioner No 2 was employed on daily wages between 13th August, 1986 and 6th March, 1987, with regard to the petitioner No. 3 no specific dates are given although it is admitted that he too was appointed on daily wages and with regard to the petitioner No. 4 it was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the bar that he had not been appointed on daily wages. Anil Kumar Singh, the petitioner in the other petition, was appointed on daily wages between 10th June, 1986 and 10th March, 1987. It is admitted that all the petitioners were respectively paid their wages as settled. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the instant case two salient features have been admitted. They are (1) the three petitioners in the instant petition and the sole petitioner in the other petition were appointed as Class IV employees on daily wages 1 and 2 all the petitioners were performing the same job as the regularly appointed Class IV employees. The stand taken by the respondents is that since the petitioners had accepted the employment on daily wages with their eyes open and they have accepted the payment on that basis, they are now not entitled to claim the same wages as the regularly appointed Class IV employee. 7. The controversy with respect to the payment of wages stands concluded by two decisions of the Supreme Court. The first is Hirendar Chamoli v. Union of India, 1984 UPLBEC 754 and the second case is Surendra Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, 1986 UPLBEC 760. 7. The controversy with respect to the payment of wages stands concluded by two decisions of the Supreme Court. The first is Hirendar Chamoli v. Union of India, 1984 UPLBEC 754 and the second case is Surendra Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, 1986 UPLBEC 760. In both the cases their Lordships severely condemned the attitude of the State in taking the plea that, in a situation as prevailing in the instant petition, the employees could not claim the same wages as the regularly appointed Class IV employees. Their Lordships held that in a welfare State where some section of the citizens are to earn wages merely for their existence, it does not lay in the mouth of the State to take such an unfair plea. Their Lordships directed the State in the two cases to pay to the daily wages the same wages which the regularly appointed employees were receiving. It was established that both classes of employees performed the same job. In the instant case the State has not come out with the plea that the work by the petitioner was different from the work done by the regularly appointed Class IV employees. The result is that the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 in the instant petition and the sole petitioner in the other writ petition are entitled to be paid wages on the same footing as were paid by the respondents on the relevant date to the regularly appointed Class IV employees. 8. We, accordingly, direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner, the same wages which were paid by them to the regularly appointed class IV employees for the period during which petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 in the instant petition and the sole petitioner in other petition worked as daily wagers. Of course, while making the payment, the respondents will be entitled to deduct the amount already paid by them to the said petitioner as daily wages. The respondents shall make payment to the aforesaid petitioners within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court by any of the petitioners before the appropriate authority. 9. With these directions, these petitions are disposed of finally. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.