JUDGMENT G.B. Singh, J. - This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order, dated 23 February 1988, annexure 20 whereby the petitioners have been ordered to be relieved from Faizabad, Gonda and Sultanpur Depots for their appointments as conductors in Dehra Dun Region and a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to declare the petitioners 2, 3 and 5 as permanent junior clerks/booking clerks and petitioners 1, 4, 6 and 7 to 9 as permanent office assistants grade II and to pay the salary with arrears with effect from 28 February 1986, and other consequential benefits. 2. It is undisputed that the petitioners were originally appointed as labourers on daily wages in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (here in alter referred to as corporation). The dates and places of their appointments as labourers on daily wages are as given below : Name of petitioners Date of appointment Place of appointment 1. Dhirendra Kumar Singh (petitioner 1) 7 July 1980 Sultanpur 2. M. R. Zaidi (petitioner 2) 15 November 1979 Faizabad 3. Chandra Kant Srivastava (petitioner 3) 21 July 1981 Gonda 4. Om Prakash Srivastava (petitioner 4) 21 November 1981 Sultanpur 5. Prem Deo Pandey (petitioner 5) 25 October 1981 Gonda 6. Amrit Nath Pathak (petitioner 6) 5 October 1981 Gonda 7. Anil Kumar Srivastava (petitioner 7) 9 February 1982 Gonda 8. Chandra Sheikhar Pandey (petitioner 8) 1 March 1979 Faizabad 9. Rajendra Prasad Srivastava (petitioner 9) 8 December 1978 Gonda 3. According to the petitioners since petitioners 1,4, 5, 7 and 8 were intermediate ; petitioners 2, 3 and 9 were graduates and petitioner 6 was B.A., LL. B., they were employed as clerks on daily wages sometime after their initial appointment as labourers on daily wages and they continued to work as clerks in the respective offices of their appointments as clerks till the impugned order, dated 23 February 1988, was passed for relieving them from the aforesaid posts and their appointments as conductors in Debra Dun Region. The petitioners have been representing and meeting the respondents from time to time in order to press their demand to appoint them as regular clerks but they did not pay any heed and continued to take work from them on a meagre payment of Rs. 300 per month. The petitioners have been representing and meeting the respondents from time to time in order to press their demand to appoint them as regular clerks but they did not pay any heed and continued to take work from them on a meagre payment of Rs. 300 per month. The matter of regularisation of clerks working on daily wages was engaging attention of the superior authorities of the corporation also. The Regional Manager, Faizabad, therefore, wrote a letter on 4 February 1986, to Deputy General Manager (Central Zone), Lucknow, annexure 15, for regularisation of the clerks working on daily wages as office assistants and junior clerks/booking clerks. Deputy General Manager (Central Zone) through his letter, dated 18 March 1986; annexure 16, intimated the Regional Manager, Faizabad, to relieve such clerks. There was some other correspondence also between the Regional Manager, Faizabad. and the Deputy General Manager (Central Zone), Lucknow, in this connection and they are annexures 17 to 19. Ultimately, the Regional Manager. Faizabad, passed the impugned order, dated 23 February 1988. in compliance with the order of the Deputy General Manager (Karyalaya) that the petitioners are being relieved for being appointed as conductors in Dehra Dun Region. 4. The case of the petitioners is that the action of the respondents in reverting the petitioners and posting them on the post of conductors instead of regularising them on the post of clerks as is evident from their letters, dated 18 February 1986, 18 March 1986 and 5 August 1986, is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners worked on the post of office assistants and junior clerks/booking clerks for over 8 years without any break and have acquired right to be regularised on the aforesaid posts and they cannot be reverted and made conductors. Since the authorities decided to make the petitioners permanent as back as 28 February 1986, they maybe deemed to be permanent clerks and as such they cannot be relieved and appointed as conductors. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties in which it has been admitted by them that the petitioners were initially appointed as labourers on daily wages but sometime after their aforesaid appointments, work as clerk was taken from them on account of their educational qualifications. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties in which it has been admitted by them that the petitioners were initially appointed as labourers on daily wages but sometime after their aforesaid appointments, work as clerk was taken from them on account of their educational qualifications. According to the opposite parties the work of clerk has been taken from the petitioners from the following dates : Petitioner 1 - from 7 June 1983. Petitioner 2 - from 8 September 1980. Petitioner 3 - from 1 October 1982. Petitioner 4 - from 17 February 1984. Petitioner 5 - from 1 May 1983. Petitioner 6 - from 1 March 1983. Petitioner 7 - from 1 April 1985. Petitioner 8 - from 1 July 1983. Petitioner 9 - from 5 March 1983. It is also admitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners were formerly paid at the rate of Rs. 250 per mensem and at present they are being paid at the rate of Rs. 300 per mensem. It has been pleaded by the opposite parties in their counter-affidavit that the petitioners instead of daily wages are being appointed as regular conductors and it cannot be said to be their reversion. It has been further stated in the counter-affidavit that the correspondence which took place between the Deputy General Manager (Central Zone) and Regional Manager, Faizabad, was confidential and the petitioners cannot take any advantage from it. It has been denied in the counter-affidavit that any order was passed for regularisation of the petitioners on the post of office assistants and junior clerks/booking clerks. The petitioners were never appointed as clerks though work of clerk was taken from them. There were no vacancies of clerks where the petitioners were working and as such they could not be regularised as claimed by them. The petition is not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 6. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have been working as clerks for the last several years but they are being paid only Rs. The petition is not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 6. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have been working as clerks for the last several years but they are being paid only Rs. 300 per mensem which is much less than the emoluments of those who have been regularly appointed but doing the same work and the petitioners are entitled to the pay equal to that of the regularly employed clerks on the principle of equal pay for equal work and the doctrine of equality before law. We find much force in this argument. 7. It is undisputed that the petitioners were employed as labourers on daily wages but work of clerks, as they were educated, was taken from them for the last several years. It is also undisputed that the petitioners for the aforesaid clerical work have been paid at the rate of Rs. 300 per mensem whereas the starting pay of a clerk regularly appointed is much higher than this amount. One of the Directive Principles of Policy to be followed by the State enshrined in Article 39 of the Constitution is that there should be equal pay for equal work. The workers employed on daily wages doing the same work which is done by regularly appointed clerks can claim equal pay on the basis of this doctrine. The discrimination in making less payment to the clerks employed on daily wages than wages of regularly employed clerks does not appear to be based on any rational basis. In Dhirendra Chamoli and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1986-I L. L. N. 293], similar point was raised by casual workers on daily-wage basis employed by Central Government in different Kendras of Nehru Yuvak Kendra in the country. They were doing the same work which was done by regular Class IV employees against sanctioned posts. It was argued before their Lordships that casual workers on daily wages 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. In this connection the following observations were made in Para. 2, at page 294 : ". . . It was argued before their Lordships that casual workers on daily wages 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. In this connection the following observations were made in Para. 2, at page 294 : ". . . 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 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. This article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal values. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, must, therefore, get the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. 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 this case writ petitions were allowed and the Central Government was directed to give casual workers on daily wages who were performing the same duties as Class IV employees, the same salary and conditions of service as were being received by Class IV employees except regularisation which could not be done since there were no sanctioned posts. With regard to regularisation their Lordships made the following observations in Para. 3, at page 294 : ". . . But we hope and trust that posts will be sanctioned by the Central Government in the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras, so that these persons can be regularised . . ." 8. In Surinder Singh and another v. Engineer-in-Chief, Central Public Works Department, and others [1986-I L. L. N. 522], it was laid down that doctrine of equal pay for equal work is enforceable in a Court of law and not an abstract doctrine. . ." 8. In Surinder Singh and another v. Engineer-in-Chief, Central Public Works Department, and others [1986-I L. L. N. 522], it was laid down that doctrine of equal pay for equal work is enforceable in a Court of law and not an abstract doctrine. In this case I also their Lordships directed Central Public Works Department to pay equal pay to daily-wage workers who were doing the same work which was done by the permanent employees. In another case Daily-rated Casual Labour Employed under Posts and Telegraphs Department (through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch) v. Union of India and others [1988- I L. L. N. 48], some casual labourers in Posts and Telegraphs Departments were employed but they were not paid the minimum pay in pay-scales of regularly employed workmen. A writ petition was, therefore, filed on their behalf claiming wages equal to pay of regularly appointed workmen. It was held in this case that denial of minimum pay in pay-scales of regularly employed workmen to casual labourers amounts to exploitation of labour and the classification of casual labourers for purpose of payment of different rates of wages is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The relevant observations made in this case are as given below in Para. 6, at page 53 : ". . . It may be true that the petitioners have not been regularly recruited but many of them have been working continuously for more than a year in the department and some of them have been engaged as casual labourers for nearly ten years. They are rendering the same kind of service which is being rendered by the regular employees doing the same type of work. Clause (2) of Article 38 of the Constitution of India which contains one of the Directive Principles of State Policy provides that : 'The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.' Even though the above directive principle may not be enforceable as such by virtue of Article 37 of the Constitution of India, it may be relied upon by the petitioners to show that in the instant case, they have been subjected to hostile discrimination. It is urged that the State cannot deny at least the minimum pay in the pay-scales of regularly employed workmen even though the Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees. We are of the view that such denial amounts 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. 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 the 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 further classification of casual labourers into three categories namely : (i) those who have not completed 720 days of service ; (ii) those who have completed 720 days of service and not completed 1200 days of service ; and (iii) those who have completed more than 1200 days of service. for the purpose of payment of different rates of wages is equally untenable, There is clearly no justification for doing so. Such a classification is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 9. In this case also the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Government and other authorities to pay wages to the workmen employed as casual labourers at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay-scales of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres but without any increment. In Uttar Pradesh Income-tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association v. Union of India and other [1988-1 L. L. N, 667], Class IV employees working on daily wages were awarded wages at the rate equivalent to minimum pay in pay-scale of regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres. In Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union v. P. L. Singh and others [1988-I L. L. N. 674], the point involved was about payment of wages to workers on daily wages. It was observed in this case in Para. In Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union v. P. L. Singh and others [1988-I L. L. N. 674], the point involved was about payment of wages to workers on daily wages. It was observed in this case in Para. 2, at page 675 that : "... There is no justification for the corporation extracting the same amount of work from the workmen concerned on payment of daily wages at rates lower than the minimum salary which is being paid to other workmen who have been recruited regularly even though the workmen involved in this case have been working for a number of years. . . " In this case also the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Delhi Municipal Corporation to pay the Vaccinators/immunisors employed on daily wages, at the rate equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay-scales of regularly employed vaccinators/immunisors without any increment. In Vishnath and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [1986-II L. L. N. 479], also similar direction was given on the basis of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. 10. In view of the observations made in the aforesaid cases there is no room for doubt that the petitioners are entitled to the minimum pay in the pay-scales of the regularly employed clerks in the corresponding cadres without any increment. 11. The point which arises for consideration now is from when this minimum pay in the pay-scales of the regularly employed clerks (assistant grade II and junior clerks/booking clerks) should be directed to be paid to the petitioners. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners should be paid such wages from the date when clerical work was taken from them. Since there is some controversy about the dates from when such a work was taken from them and the fact that there had been breaks in service in connection with some of the petitioners and such a factual controversy cannot be resolved in the writ petition, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It may be mentioned here that in Para. 7 of the counter-affidavit it is mentioned that the services of petitioner 4 were terminated on 13 April 1982, and he was reappointed on 13 November 1982. With regard to petitioner 8, it has been stated in Para. It may be mentioned here that in Para. 7 of the counter-affidavit it is mentioned that the services of petitioner 4 were terminated on 13 April 1982, and he was reappointed on 13 November 1982. With regard to petitioner 8, it has been stated in Para. 11 of the counter-affidavit that he was not high school at the time of his appointment on 3 January 1979. He passed that examination while in employment and work of clerk was taken from him with effect from 1 July 1983, whereas petitioner 8 alleges that he had been working as clerk from 3 January 1979. In Daily-rated Cataal Labour Employed under Posts and Telegraphs Department (through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Monch) v. Union of India and others [1988-I L. L. N. 48], (vide supra), the minimum pay in the pay-scales of regularly employed clerks was awarded from the date on which the first writ petition had been filed. It may be made clear that this judgment was given in two connected Writ Petitions Nos. 302 and 370 of 1986 and the Writ Petition No. 302 of 1986, was filed on 5 February 1986, and the minimum pay was awarded from 5 February 1986. In Uttar Pradesh Income-tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association v. Union of India and others [1988-I L. L. N. 667], (vide supra), also wages at the aforesaid rate were awarded from 1 December 1986, which appears to be the date of the filing of Writ Petition No. 1670 of 1986 in which this judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Vashnath and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [1986 -I L.L.N. 479], (vide supra), there was a specific direction for payment of the wages at the enhanced rate from the date of filing of the writ petition. In Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union v. P.L. Singh and others [1988-I L. L. N. 674], (vide supra), higher wages were awarded from the date of reference of the industrial dispute, i. e., 23 November 1981. It appears from this that the principle enunciated in these cases that such higher wages should be awarded when the controversy is raised before the Court or some other authority competent to adjudicate it. It appears from this that the principle enunciated in these cases that such higher wages should be awarded when the controversy is raised before the Court or some other authority competent to adjudicate it. It is true that in Dhirendra Chamoli and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1986-II L. L. N. 293], (vide supra), and Surendra Singh and another v. Engineer-in-Chief, Central Public Works Department, and others [1986-I L.L.N. 522], (vide supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded such wages from the date when petitioners were employed, but subsequently expressed view different from this in the latter cases. The principle laid down in latter cases that such wages should be awarded from the date when dispute is raised before the Court or some other competent authority exercising judicial functions appears acceptable. It may also be added that the petitioners do not claim pay at the enhanced rate from the dates when they started work of clerk. They have prayed for arrears from 28 February 1986. No order or letter, dated 28 February 1986, has been produced to show that the petitioners were awarded enhanced pay from 28 February 1986. There is a reference of D. O. letter, dated 28 February 1986, in the letter, dated 18 March 1986. Annexure 16 from Deputy General Manager, Lucknow, to Regional Manager, Faizabad, but it does not support the case of the petitioners in any way. Through this letter Regional Manager was directed to relieve transferred workers on daily wages immediately. The petitioners had not been transferred by that date ; so it is difficult to accept that this letter refers to them. In any view of the matter the petitioners cannot claim enhanced wages from 28 February 1986 on the basis of this letter. The present writ petition had been filed on 14 March 1988. The petitioners, therefore, appear entitled to the minimum pay in the pay-scale of the regularly employed clerks from 14 March 1988. It may be made clear that this minimum pay will include other allowances like dearness allowance, additional dearness allowance, if any, admissible to the regularly employed clerks. 12. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are entitled to be regularised as clerks assistant grade II and junior clerks/booking clerks with effect from 28 February 1986. 12. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are entitled to be regularised as clerks assistant grade II and junior clerks/booking clerks with effect from 28 February 1986. In this connection he referred to the letters, dated 18 March 1986 (annexure 16), 28 August 1986 (annexure 17) and 4 September 1986 (annexure 18). It was also argued by him in this connection that the authorities had taken decision to regularise them from 28 February 1986, so they should be deemed to have been regularised from that date. As against this it was argued by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the posts were not lying vacant for regularisation of the petitioners and so they could not be regularised and still the posts were not available, they could not be regularised. It was further argued by him that no decision for regularisation of the petitioners had been taken and by any stretch of reasoning they cannot be deemed to be regularised. We find much force in the argument of the learned counsel for opposite parties. The petitioners have not been able to place any reliable material on the record showing that some posts of aforesaid clerks were available and they could be regularised against them. It appears that the petitioners had been making representations after representations for their regularisation and the authorities were too inclined to regularise them but they could not do so for want of vacant posts. As mentioned above the D.O. letter, dated 28 February 1986, in which reference has been made in letter, dated 18 March 1986 (annexure 16), and from which regularisation has been claimed has not been placed on record. In the letter, dated 18 March 1986 (annexure 16), there is no reference of regularisation. It deals with transfers of workers on daily wages and relieving them immediately. The letter, dated 28 August 1986 (annexure 17), refers letter, dated 5 August 1986, which has not been placed our record. In the letter, dated 28 August 1986, the Regional Manager has pointed out to the Deputy General Manager (Central Zone), Lucknow, discrepancies in the instructions issued through various letters about absorption of workers on daily wages and prayed for further instructions in the matter. In the letter, dated 28 August 1986, the Regional Manager has pointed out to the Deputy General Manager (Central Zone), Lucknow, discrepancies in the instructions issued through various letters about absorption of workers on daily wages and prayed for further instructions in the matter. In some of these letters instructions were to the effect that regularised clerks should be transferred and in other letters instructions were to the effect that they should be relieved first and from the date they take over charge in the other zone they should be deemed to be regularised. Thus, these two letters do not support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in any way. The third letter is, dated 4 September 1986 (annexure 18). It is by Deputy General Manager (Central Zone), Lucknow, to Regional Manager, Faizabad, asking the Regional Manager to regularise 6 assistants grade II and 3 junior clerks/booking clerks working on daily wages and then to transfer them to Jhansi. In reply to this letter Regional Manager, Faizabad, sent letter, dated 23 September 1986 (annexure 19), and again pointed out discrepancies in the instructions issued in this connection and sought for further instructions. After this Regional Manager, Faizabad, passed impugned order, dared 23 February 1986 (annexure 20), which refers to order, dated 18 February 1986, of Deputy General Manager (Office) which is not on record. It is, therefore, evident that inconsistent instructions were issued in connection with regularisation and no clear order of regularisation was passed till the impugned order, dated 23 February 1988 (annexure 20.) 13. From annexure 20 which is the impugned order it appears that the authorities ultimately decided to regularise them in Dehra Dun Region as conductors. They, therefore, passed an order to that effect. The posting of the petitioners as conductors in Dehra Dun Region is not convenient to them. They, therefore, filed the present writ petition challenging this order. The petitioners have not been able to show that the grade of conductors is less than the grade of assistant grade II and junior clerks/booking clerks There can be no doubt that the duties are different but on this ground alone it cannot be held that this order is arbitrary or illegal and should be quashed. It has been passed in the interest of the petitioners so that they may be regularised. It has been passed in the interest of the petitioners so that they may be regularised. The petitioners are labourers on daily wages and can be awarded minimum pay of a clerk because that work is being taken from them but on this ground alone they cannot claim their regularisation as clerks in particular region. Regularisation can be made when posts are available. Till posts are made available by the opposite parties, their regularisation against such posts cannot be considered. Since some posts of conductors were available they have been regularised against those posts. The petitioners are labourers on daily wages. If work of clerk can be taken from them, the employer can ask them to do the work of conductor also and for this they cannot have any grievance. 14. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties shows that no posts of clerks were available in Faizabad Region as well as in other regions so the petitioners could not be regularised as clerks. It has been further pointed out in the counter-affidavit that since regularisation of the petitioners was engaging attention since long and some posts of conductors were available in Dehra Dun Region, they are being sent there to work as conductors. This appears acceptable in the circumstances of the case. The letters referred to on behalf of the petitioners are nothing but official correspondence and on the basis of this correspondence it cannot be inferred that the petitioners had been regularised against the posts of clerks or they should be deemed to have been regularised against such posts. It may be added that for regularisation, availability of the post is necessary. Since posts of clerks were not available the petitioners could not be regularised as such and ultimately due to availability of some posts of conductors in Dehra Dun Region they have been transferred as conductors so they may be absorbed and regularised there. Thus, it cannot be held that the impugned order (annexure 20) which provides for the absorption of the petitioners as conductors in Dehra Dun Region is arbitrary or illegal and as such liable to be quashed. 15. The impugned order annexure 20 is undoubtedly an administrative order, the administrative authority while passing the order kept in view the administrative difficulties and interest of the petitioners. It cannot, therefore, be said that it has been passed in a capricious manner. 15. The impugned order annexure 20 is undoubtedly an administrative order, the administrative authority while passing the order kept in view the administrative difficulties and interest of the petitioners. It cannot, therefore, be said that it has been passed in a capricious manner. It has been observed above that it is not arbitrary or illegal. It is not the case of the petitioners that it is mala fide or without jurisdiction. Ordinarily, the High Court does not interfere in administrative action unless it is arbitrary, capricious, without or in excess of jurisdiction, mala fide, illegal or palpably unreasonable. The petitioners in the present case have failed to show that the impugned order suffers from any one of such infirmities. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief for quashing the impugned order. 16. It may also be mentioned that the petitioners are not entitled to any direction in the nature of mandamus to treat them permanent clerks. The reason is that on account of non-availability of posts of clerks they cannot be regularised and the question of becoming permanent can arise when they are regularised as clerks. 17. The writ petition, therefore, partly succeeds. The Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, opposite party 1, is directed to pay wages to the petitioners at the rates equivalent to minimum pay in pay-scale of the regularly employed clerks (assistant grade II and junior clerks/booking clerks) with effect from 14 March 1988. They are further directed to pay them corresponding dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance, if any, payable on the aforesaid minimum pay. Rest of the petitioners claim is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.