JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) FOR the first time, this matter came before us on 14-10-1987. On that day, two alternative prayers were pressed before us vide LA. Nos. IV and V - for issuance of ad interim writ, in the alternative early hearing of the matter on merits for final disposal. We were then informed that since April, 1985, the petitioner had not been paid salary and indeed, it was admitted, "he had refused salary which was paid to him less but not according to rules". We immediately fixed 20-10-1987 for hearing of the matter on merits. However, at this stage, it may be noted that on an earlier occasion, on 17-6-1987, prayer for interim writ as per LA. No. III was also pressed before the learned Vacation Judge, but the prayer was rejected even at that time taking the view that the dispute between the parties was to be decided on merits. ( 2. ) UNFORTUNATELY, despite our best efforts, hearing could not be completed on 20-10-1987 and thereafter on various dates, prayers were made for adjournment on behalf of the respondents/state and further hearing was reluctantly postponed from lime to time. However, we heard counsel again on 2-12-1987 and on 16-12-1987 when the matter was further heard, we took the view that the only point to be decided in the case was, whether the petitioner was discharging functions and duties of Filter attendant "regularly appointed" to the post because he claimed salary on that basis. It was submitted on that date by State Counsel Shri Sinha that "regularly appointed" filter Attendant had different functions and duties unlike the petitioner who was a "work charged Filter Attendant. " Counsel took time to place material before us in that regard by filing affidavit etc. within three days. Although the matter had to come before us for further hearing on 8-1-1988, we had to note on 11-1-1988 the statement of shri Sinha that the "affidavit was almost ready and would be filed tomorrow". We adjourned further hearing to 13-1-1988 by our order passed on 11-1-1988. Unfortunately, neither on 13-1-1988 nor on any date thereafter, the proposed "affidavit" came and on behalf of the State, prayer was made on 25-1-1988 to adjourn the hearing further. On 1-2-1988, we concluded the oral hearing which had staggered too long, but allowed counsel to file written arguments before 4-2-1988. Unfortunately, neither on 13-1-1988 nor on any date thereafter, the proposed "affidavit" came and on behalf of the State, prayer was made on 25-1-1988 to adjourn the hearing further. On 1-2-1988, we concluded the oral hearing which had staggered too long, but allowed counsel to file written arguments before 4-2-1988. On the next date, on the prayer of State counsel, further time was allowed to him to file written arguments on or before 10-2-1988. The case was closed for judgment and indeed only on 11-2-1988, we got on record "arguments" in writing signed by State Counsel Shri sinha. ( 3. ) NOW, few material facts which are short and simple, but relevant and rather necessary, therefore, to be stated to dispose of the controversy. It is petitioners case, which is not disputed that on 1-7-1976, his services began on "temporary muster" in public Health Engineering Department, Maintenance Division, Gwalior. Although it is denied in the return that the petitioner was taken on "regular muster" as "pump driver" on and from 2-7-1977, it is still admitted that he continued to serve the department "on daily wages prior to his appointment vide order dated 6-5-1981 (Annexure P/1)". On a plain reading of Annexure P/1, It appears clear that on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner was appointed as "work-charged" employee in the post of "filter Attendant" at the salary of Rs. 90/-in the pay scale of Rs. 90-3-120-4-140-5-170 on temporary basis until further orders and on other terms and conditions applicable to work-charged employees. ( 4. ) BEFORE us in this matter, validity of the order Annexure P/3 passed on 1-2-1986 is assailed. In this letter which is addressed by respondent No. 2 Executive engineer, P. H. E. , Maintenance Division No. 1, Gwalior, to the petitioner, there is reference to petitioners note, copy of which is filed with the return as a part of annexure R/3. The Note discloses petitioners refusal to accept salary on the basis of old pay scale. By Annexure P/3, the petitioner was informed that he had been appointed as Filter Attendant in the pay scale of Rs. 90- etc.-170 and that he had not completed five years service on that post. He was also informed that the relevant rules applicable to work-charged and contingency employees of 1974 and 1984 did not provide any pay scale for the post of Filter Attendant. 90- etc.-170 and that he had not completed five years service on that post. He was also informed that the relevant rules applicable to work-charged and contingency employees of 1974 and 1984 did not provide any pay scale for the post of Filter Attendant. For availing benefit of revised pay scales, a work-charged employee was required to complete ten years service and in that connection, reference in the letter was made to Annexure II of the relevant rules (to which, we will soon advert) to ultimate him further that the petitioner did not fulfil the other eligibility conditions thereunder and in that view of the matter, benefit of five years service that he had put in would not avail him. In the same letter, it was further mentioned that an over-payment of Rs. 6,760. 35 was made to him as a result of his being given the benefit of the revised pay scale through mistake and that the amount would be recovered from him for which appropriate proceedings were being taken. ( 5. ) ALTHOUGH endless arguments on both sides had been advanced as also in written arguments and a huge mass of case-law is cited to support various contentions, as earlier alluded, we propose to dispose of this matter by considering merely the grievance of the petitioner based on the judicial doctrine equal Pay for Equal Work and in that regard only we propose to refer also the relevant statutory provisions and case-law cited. M. P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983, for short, "1983 Rules" or "rules" had been given retrospective effect under Rule 1 (2) of the said Rules from 1st April, 1981. However, Rule 4 of the said Rules, by clause (d) of the Proviso excluded from operation of those Rules, "persons paid from contingencies and work charged employees". Revised scales of pay applicable to various posts are shown in Annexures i and II of the Rules. Annexure II contains particulars of "posts" in different departments showing "existing scales" and "revised scales" applicable to Government servants in the pay and establishments of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The post of "filler Attendant" is one of the posts in the Public Health Engineering Department mention of which is made in Annexure II. The existing pay scale of the post is shown as Rs. 135-230 and the revised scale as Rs. 515-800. The post of "filler Attendant" is one of the posts in the Public Health Engineering Department mention of which is made in Annexure II. The existing pay scale of the post is shown as Rs. 135-230 and the revised scale as Rs. 515-800. In this matter, the petitioner claimed that he is entitled to be paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 515-800 from the date of his appointment as "filter Attendant" under Annexure P/1 because all Filter attendants, whether they are employed on "work-charged" basis or are borne on "permanent establishment" they do the same job. ( 6. ) WE also looked at the Madhya Pradesh Work-charged and Contingency Paid employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1984, for short, "1984 Rules" or the "rules" to which reference is made in Annexure P/3. These "rules" have also been given retrospective effec on and from 1st April, 1982 by Rule 1 (b ). The terms "permanent Employee" and "temporary Employee" are defined in Rule 2 under Clauses (g) and (h) respectively; clause (f) defines the term "member" to mean "member of the work-charged and contingency paid employees service drawing pay in the existing scale". We extract in extenso Rules 3 and 4: "3. Scope and application.- These rules shall apply to all members of the work-charged and contingency paid employees service drawing pay in the existing scale on 1st April 1982 : provided that a temporary employee shall be governed by these rules only, if he fulfils the requisite qualifications shown in column (4) of Annexure II in respect of the posts mentioned in column (2) thereof. Provided further that a temporary employee who does not possess the requisite qualifications will continue to get the emoluments in the existing scale till he becomes permanent member as per clause (g) of Rule 2. 4. Revised Scale of Pay.- The revised scale of pay applicable to a post carrying existing scale shown in column (2) of Annexure-I shall be the corresponding scale shown in column (4) thereof in respect of that post. " (Emphasis added ). In virtue of Rule 5, a "permanent Employee" as also a "temporary Employee" are enabled to "draw pay in the revised scale applicable to the post which he holds" anneuxre I of the Rules are given "existing" and "revised" scales of pay. " (Emphasis added ). In virtue of Rule 5, a "permanent Employee" as also a "temporary Employee" are enabled to "draw pay in the revised scale applicable to the post which he holds" anneuxre I of the Rules are given "existing" and "revised" scales of pay. In Annexure ii are given columnwise such particulars as - (2) "designation"; (3) "pay Scale"; (4)"minimum qualification, experience and other conditions" and (5) "percentage for direct recruitment and promotion". Reliance is placed by Shri Sinha, Government advocate on item 3 (A) of Annexure-II to support the impugned order Annexure P/1. It is counsels submission that the minimum qualifications envisaged thereunder are not fulfilled by the petitioner and as such, he cannot even be considered as a temporary Employee" though he had completed five years service on the date on which the order was passed. Indeed, his precise contention is that petitioner could have availed the revised pay scale Rs. 445-635/- under item No. 3 (A) of Annexure-II if he fulfilled the requirement contemplated under clause (ii) of col. No. (4) of Annexure-II which contemplate that the holder of the post mentioned in column (2) must have passed VIII Class and one year Training certificate from ITI". Because of petitioners case is not that he possessed one year training certificate from ITI, he was not entitled to the revised pay scale contemplated against item No. 3 (A) of Annexure-II. ( 7. ) IN this connection, it may be noted that in Annexure-II, the revised scale, Rs. 445-635/-, is shown as the new pay scale which replaces two "existing" pay scales - (a)90-170 and (b) 105-200. However, it is also to be noted that of the several different posts described by their respective "designations" in column (2) of item No 3 (A), there is no post of "filter Attendant". True it is, column (2) also speaks illustratively of "and others of equivalent work requirements", but, the fact of the matter is that the executive Engineer has himself, in his letter Annexure P/l, admitted that the post of "filter Attendant" is not provided for under 1984 Rules and, therefore, we will not be justified in accepting the contention of Shri Sinha that the case of the petitioner has to be decided in the context of item No. 3 (A) of Annexure-II of 1984 Rules. Indeed, as earlier alluded, although Shri Sinha persuaded us to adjourn hearing of the matter repeatedly to enable him to file affidavit to establish the nature of duties and functions of the petitioner, but that move proved abortive. 7a. Still, to be fair to Shri Sinha, we may mention that he did file, though he did not press it, LA. VI on 13-1-1988, in which he took upon himself the responsibility of making few unverified factual averments. The application is signed only by the counsel and not even by the Officer-in-Charge and indeed, it is not even supported by any affidavit. In the said application, it is stated that the petitioner was working as pump Attendant in Maintenance Division No 1, Public Health Engineering department, Gwalior and that he was "not on the Filter Plant installed at Moti Jheel". We do not think if we would be justified to take cognizance of the averments made in the said application which was not pressed even for our acceptance in the course of hearing and also because of the new stand taken in the said application contrary to admission of the Executive Engineer himself in Annexure P/3. It has been clearly established in this case on the basis of Annexures P/1 and P/3 that the petitioner was appointed to the post of "filter Attendant" on 6-5-1981 and that he was discharging the duties and functions of that post even on 1-2-1986 and this position came to obtain as a result of his promotion to the post on the basis of the recommendations of the departmental Promotion Committee though he was initially inducted into service as a "pump Driver". In Annexure P/4, it is clearly projected that in 1979, the petitioner was serving as a Pump Driver and as such, he had continued on that post till he was promoted to the post of "filter Attendant" in 1981. ( 8. ) WE are of the view on the facts and law discussed above, relevant to the contraversy in issue, that the case of the petitioner cannot be disposed of in terms of 1984 Rules. Because, though he was appointed as a Filter Attendant in 1981 under annexure P/1 as a "work-charged" employee in the scale of Rs. 90-170 and the corresponding revised pay scale under 1984 Rules is Rs. Because, though he was appointed as a Filter Attendant in 1981 under annexure P/1 as a "work-charged" employee in the scale of Rs. 90-170 and the corresponding revised pay scale under 1984 Rules is Rs. 445-635, that scale of pay mentioned in 1984 Rules is not meant for the "post of Filter Attendant". This position, as we have seen, has indeed been accepted and admitted by the Executive Engineer in his letter Annexure P/3. Rules 4 and 5 of 1984 Rules make it clear that the "existing" as also revised" scales of pay envisaged under 1984 Rules are relatable to ("in respect of") particular "posts" mentioned in Annexure-II of the said Rules. There being no mention of the post of "filter Attendnat" in 1984 Rules, reliance on the provisions thereof to dismiss the claim of the petitioner (in terms of Second proviso to Rule 3)would not avail the respondents. ( 9. ) THE view we have taken in this matter renders it unnecessary for us to examine rival contentions raised with reference to a recent decision of this Court in karvabharit Evam Dainik Vetan Kamachari Sangha, 1987 MPLJ 741 = 1987 JLJ 733 . On behalf of the petitioner, Shri Velankar has contended vehemently that the decision has to be ignored as it has ceased to be a good law, running counter io the view expressed by their Lordships in Bhagwan Doss vs. State of Haiyana, AIR 1987 SC 204. of which no notice could indeed have been taken by the D. B. which decided the case on 10-4-1987 before decision was rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme court in Bhagwan Dass (supra) on 31-7-1987. Indeed, this Court, in the above referred case, was required merely to consider the constitutional validity of 1984 Rules and noting more. The Rules were held valid and no other question was considered on the scone, ambit, interpretation and applicability of the Rules to any particular case. That being the position, we do not consider it necessary to deal with case-law cited on both sides on rival contentions on the validity of the decision or of 1984 Rules. ( 10. The Rules were held valid and no other question was considered on the scone, ambit, interpretation and applicability of the Rules to any particular case. That being the position, we do not consider it necessary to deal with case-law cited on both sides on rival contentions on the validity of the decision or of 1984 Rules. ( 10. ) HOWEVER, we are also not satisfied that reliance on Bhagwan Dass (supra)would avail the petitioner to press his claim to the extent that he was entitled to the benefit of the revised pay scale contemplated under 1983 Rules in respect of the post of "filter Attendant", namely, Rs. 515-800/ -. On the other hand, the petitioner, in our view, would only be entitled, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to claim the minimum salary in the pay scale of Rs. 515-800/- (without increments, at this stage) on the basis of the judicial doctrine equal Pay for Equal Work. Because he has been appointed as "filter Attendant" and there is a pay scale for the post of "filter attendant" under 1983 Rules and none under 1984 Rules, for the work done in the post of "filter Attendant" he cannot be denied the minimum salary which was being paid to any "filter Attendant" (under 1983 Rules) in the same P. H. E. Department. More on this later, as we have to say few words first on Bhagwan Dass (supra) to repel the Contention of Shri Velankar advancing petitioners claim to the pay-scale of "filter attendant" under 1983 Rules. 10-A. Their Lordships were not required to consider in, Bhagwan Dass the scope of entitlement under two different sets of Service Rules. The questions which fell for their Lordships consideration were that the petitioners had been treated as temporary government servants and were not being regularised and they were not being given the benefit of the pay scale applicable in case of regular employees though they did the same work as Supervisors in the Education Department who had been absorbed as regular Government servants. Indeed, in that case the question was, whether the petitioners could be denied the pay scale on the ground that their appointments were made under a temporary scheme on six-monthly basis and there was a break in their service. There, service conditions of the petitioners were not regulated by any statutory rules, which exposed them to arbitrary treatment. Indeed, in that case the question was, whether the petitioners could be denied the pay scale on the ground that their appointments were made under a temporary scheme on six-monthly basis and there was a break in their service. There, service conditions of the petitioners were not regulated by any statutory rules, which exposed them to arbitrary treatment. The holding in that case was that the petitioners could not be denied the pay scale as they were entitled to be paid on the basis of length of service computed from their date of appointment by disregarding the breaks. 10-B. In the instant case, the position is entirely different. The petitioner is a work-charged" employee as his right is traceable to his appointment made under annexure P/1. True, 1984 Rules have been framed to deal with cases of persons of his class though his case unfortunately is not covered by those Rules. Still, on that account, it cannot be said that the Rules are so deficient or incomplete that the petitioner may stand the risk of being treated arbitrarily and, therefore, we ignore his statutory status as a "work-charged" worker and treat him on the same basis as a case of "temporary" Employee conceived under Bhagwan Dass (supra) to protect his interest in the same manner. This view, we have taken because of the provisions contained in rule 11 of 1984 Rules by which the State Government is empowered to "relax or suspend the operation of any of the provisions of these rules in the case of an employee or category of employees in such manner and to such extent as may appear to it to be just and equitable or necessary or expedient in the public interest". Indeed, the provision is meant to ensure that the Rules do not operate to the "disadvantage of the employee or category of employees, as the case may be" as is made clear by the proviso to the Rule. That apart, it is well within the competence of the State government to amend the Rules if so advised, from time to time, should it appear to it that the case of any work-charged employee or class or category of such employees who discharge duties of a particular post as such an employee has been ignored or overlooked under those Rules. In Bhagwan Dass (supra), such position did not obtain and arbitrary action of the Government in dealing with persons discharging same duties and functions to the disadvantage of some such persons was struck down, that was a case of a pay scale which could be otherwise availed, but being denied arbitrarily by making appointments of some persons on six-monthly basis and the break of service disentitling them to claim the pay scale. ( 11. ) OTHER decisions cited by Shri Velankar on the doctrine equal Pay for Equal work do indeed support the view we have taken in this case. In the latest decision in daily R. C. Labour, P. and T. Department vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2342 , we read what may be considered as the pith and substance of the doctrine. If a "filter attendant" who is borne on the permanent establishment is entitled to the pay scale of rs. 515-800/-, it would be a gross violation of Articles 14, 16, 23, 37, 38, 39 (d) and indeed also of 43 of the Constitution if the petitioner discharging the same functions and duties is allowed to continue in the pay scale of Rs. 90-170/ -. What was regarded statutorily as the minimum wage ("living wage" under Article 43) for a class of "filter attendants" should be applicable to all Filter Attendants in the same P. H. E department doing the same work so as to pre-empt denial of equal opportunity in matters of employment, such as, entitlement of minimum wage and protection against forced labour. It was held by their Lordships in the Daily R. C. Labour case (supra)that State could not deny to them the minimum pay in the pay scale of regularly employed workmen because such denial amounted to exploitation of labour. The government cannot take advantage of its dominant position and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starving wages though the Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees. The same view was earlier taken in a similar case Dheerendra Chamoli, (1986) 1 SCC 637 , which was cited before their Lordships, but there are other cases also which give the same meaning to the doctrine, such as Surinder Singh, (1986) 1 SCC 639 . The same view was earlier taken in a similar case Dheerendra Chamoli, (1986) 1 SCC 637 , which was cited before their Lordships, but there are other cases also which give the same meaning to the doctrine, such as Surinder Singh, (1986) 1 SCC 639 . The principle underlying the decisions indeed is that no employee under the State would be denied the minimum wage (to which a regularly appointed employee is entitled) on the footing that same employee is not similarly appointed and is recruited differently and he does not possess the same or similar qualifications for the job. In the source of the judicial doctrine, Randhirsingh, AIR 1982 SC 879 the question considered was of pay differential generally, though later, in P. K. Ramchandra Iyer, AIR 1984 SC 541 , their lordships categorically held that unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification was violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d ). In Delhi Veterinary associations case AIR 1984 SC 1221 the Pay Commission was given necessary guidance in the matter. Decisions cited, we reiterate, do not lay down that when statutory rules occupy the field, they have to be totally ignored. According to us, the constitutional doctrine can be, and has to be, used to fill in gaps in such rules. ( 12. ) HOWEVER, Shri Velankar has also made submissions to persuade us to develop the concept of restitutive justice by enlarging the concept of distributive justice in pressing the claim of the petitioner for award of a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and also interest against the respondents for non-payment of salary to him for the last three years. Unfortunately, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not satisfied if that exercise we should undertake in this case because of the stand which the petitioner had himself taken initially in Annexure R/3 refusing to accept any salary until his salary was drawn and paid to him in accordance with the revised pay scales. In this case, there is some justification for the action by the respondents which is manifested in two letters marked Annexure R/1. In this case, there is some justification for the action by the respondents which is manifested in two letters marked Annexure R/1. These are two letters addressed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department of the State on 17-2-1987 to all Executive Engineers of Public Health Engineering Divisions of the State in the context of audit objections in regard to "over-payments" on the basis of "incorrect fixation" of pay by allowing benefit of revised pay scales. True it is, the general audit objection may not be the final word as this Court shall have the final say on the petitioners grievance as to what salary he had to be paid. It cannot still be said that action of the respondents was wholly without jurisdiction or tainted with mala fide. ( 13. ) WE are still prepared to take care of the injustice which the petitioner has suffered in the course of hearing of his grievances in this Court on account of adjournments which State Counsel obtained unnecessarily and without valid justification. Shri Velankar has drawn our attention to this Courts decision in Raja Bat gorkar, 1987 Lab. I. C. 1386 when this Court made an order for compensatory costs against the State in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- for "vexatious defence" and for unnecessarily and unceremoniously delaying proceedings in this Court. We are satisfied that the petitioner has a reasonable grievance against the meritless defence which was advanced in this case by the State hi support of which "affidavit" was to be filed and has not been filed, but also for staggering disposal of the matter otherwise on account of several adjournments which State Counsel obtained in the course of hearing of the matter. We consider it appropriate to make an order for costs against the respondents in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ -. ( 14. ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we hold that the impugned order Annexure P/3 must go. We hold that the petitioner is entitled to be paid the minimum salary in the pay scale of Rs. 515-800/- for the post of "filter Attendant" with effect from the date of his appointment as he would be entitled thereto in virtue of that pay scale being available for that post on and from 1st April, 1981 under the 1983 Rules. 515-800/- for the post of "filter Attendant" with effect from the date of his appointment as he would be entitled thereto in virtue of that pay scale being available for that post on and from 1st April, 1981 under the 1983 Rules. This view, we have taken on being satisfied about the position that he is discharging the same duties and functions of the post of "filter Attendant" to which other persons serving in that post doing the the same job are entitled from 1-4-1981. Accordingly, the direction in the impugned order Annexure P/3 that the petitioner will be entitled to salary in the old or existing pay scale of Rs. 90-170/- is quashed. We also direct that the salary payable to him shall be recomputed in accordance with the directions herein made and the order of recovery from his salary shall be modified to that extent. We further direct that he shall be continued to be paid monthly salary at the rate of Rs. 515/-without increments till such time as appropriate action is not taken by the State government in accordance with Rule 11 of 1984 Rules by amendment of the Rules or in such other manner as it may deem fit and proper to ensure that the petitioner, while sen ing in the post of "filter Attendant" does not suffer a hostile treatment and his case is dealt with under the Rules applicable to him in accordance with constitutional imperatives as laid down in the decisions of their Lordships of the Suprem Court. The arrear-salary of the petitioner as also the costs awarded to him shall be paid within one month from today. ( 15. ) AS a result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs to the extent already indicated above. Petition allowed.