N.C. SHARMA, J.—This order will decide Civil Writ Petitions No. 2305/ 1989,2278/1989, 2224/1989 and 2109/1989, by a common order because substantially they arose in the similar back-ground. 2. Facts leading to the filing of Civil Writ Petition No. 2305/1989 are that the petitioner, Kamlesh Chand Meena had been adjudged suitable for regular appointment on the post of LDC in Municipal Council, Ajmer by an order dated February 23, 1985 although he initially came to be appointed on this post in the year 1979. The petitioner alleges that in the year 1984 he was directed to work on the post of Revenue Inspector and he continued to work on that post till the year 1986-87. Although, the petitioner worked on the post of Revenue Inspector, he was not paid the salary and benefits admissible to the post of Revenue Inspector. By another order dated December 12, 1988, the petitioner directed to work on the post of Revenue Inspector and since then he was working on that post. However, the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur issued an office order on May 12, 1989 by which it was inter alia directed that if employees of Municipal Council were working on posts other than the one on which they were appointed, they would be relieved from the higher post held by them. This order was modified by an order dated May 20, 1989. Even after the passing of these two orders, the petitioner continued to work on the post of Revenue Inspector. But under yet another order dated June 8, 1989 passed by the Commissioner (Civil Line Zone), Municipal Council, Jaipur, the earlier aforesaid order dated December 28, 1988 was cancelled which resulted in non-continuance of the petitioner on the post of Revenue Inspector. The order dated June 8, 1989 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner fully possessed the qualifications required for being considered for promotion on the post of Revenue Inspector. Presently, there were nine posts of Revenue Inspectors available for being filled by promotion but the respondents have not taken steps for filling the posts of Revenue Inspectors by promotion in accordance with the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial) Service Rules, 1963. Presently, there were nine posts of Revenue Inspectors available for being filled by promotion but the respondents have not taken steps for filling the posts of Revenue Inspectors by promotion in accordance with the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial) Service Rules, 1963. The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated May 12, 1989 May 8, 1989 and June 20, 1989 (Annexures 3,4 and 5), directions for continuing him on the post of Revenue Inspector with consequential benefits and payment to him of arrears of salary of this post. 3. Respondents No 3 and 4 have filed counter to the writ petition. They have pleaded that from time to time, the petitioner was asked to do the work of Revenue Inspector looking to the exigency of the work. By order dated December 28, 1988, the petitioner was asked to do the work of Revenue Inspector in addition to the duties of his original work of Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner had never been appointed on the post of Revenue Inspector and merely his having worked on the said post did not entitle him to be appointed as Revenue Inspector either by promotion or direct recruitment. The impugned orders are said to be legal and valid and further that there has not been breach of any rules or regulations or that of any constitutional provision. 4. Coming to the next Writ Petition No. 2278/1989 filed by Chiranji Lal, his case is that he was initially appointed on the post of Beldar on November 7, 1977 in the Motor Garage of Municipality, Jaipur. He was made permanent by an order dated March 31, 1981, issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jaipur. Thereafter, he was transferred to the General Provident Fund/ Provident Fund Branch for doing accounts work of that Branch under an order dated January 3,1987, issued By the Commissioner (Headquarters). Municipal Council, Jaipur. This order was issued after approval from the Administrator of the Municipal Council. Then by an order dated July 14, 1987 the petitioner had been allotted the work of octroi, garden, receipts and despatch in the General Provident Fund and Provident Fund Branch. Municipal Council, Jaipur. This order was issued after approval from the Administrator of the Municipal Council. Then by an order dated July 14, 1987 the petitioner had been allotted the work of octroi, garden, receipts and despatch in the General Provident Fund and Provident Fund Branch. The petitioner passed the competitive examination in the year 1986 held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Revenue Officer Gr-II and he was called for interview and was selected for the said post, but his name was kept in the reserve list at Item No 4 The petitioner states that he was fully qualified and eligible for promotion as well as appointment on the post of LDC under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Subordinate and Ministerial Staff) Rules, 1963 (for short hereinafter the "Rules") and he has also the requisite experience on the post of LDC However, by an order dated May 12, 1989, issued by the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur, it had been directed to all the subordinate officers of the Municipalities that the person who had been appointed on other post and work is being taken from them of other post, they may be relieved immediately to join their principal post. The petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction as against the respondents to direct them to grant him the pay scale and service conditions pertaining to the post of LDC and further to regularise his service on the post of LDC. 5. So far as Babu Lal petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2224/1989 is concerned he was appointed as Class IV employee by the Municipal Council, Jaipur on April 14 1978. He possessed matriculation examination Although, he was appointed as Class IV employee, but he was required to perform the duties of the post of LDC. By the same order dated May 12, 1989 of the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur the petitioner is also being relieved and, therefore, he sought a direction as against the respondent to continue him on the post of Lower Division Clerk with all consequential benefits. 6. Last of the writ petition is of Matadeen Sharma, who had been appointed as Beldar in the pay scale of Rs. 240-3-270-4-290 by an order dated March 19 1980 in the Municipal Board, Jaipur and he was confirmed on the said post on November 22, 1984. 6. Last of the writ petition is of Matadeen Sharma, who had been appointed as Beldar in the pay scale of Rs. 240-3-270-4-290 by an order dated March 19 1980 in the Municipal Board, Jaipur and he was confirmed on the said post on November 22, 1984. However, by an order dated August 24, 1981 he has been discharging the duties as Establishment Clerk/LDC. Thereafter he was transferred "to Provident Fund Section. Similarly, he feels aggrieved by the order of the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur, dated May 12, 1989 and prays for continuance on the post of LDC, with all consequential benefits. 7. It would appear from the factual narration of the facts alleged by the respective petitioners that while Kamlesh Chand Meena had been appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Municipal Council, Jaipur, but he was reauired to work on the post of Revenue Inspector. Respondents No. 3 and 4 in their counter has admitted that by order dated December 28, 1988, the petitioner was asked to do the work of Revenue Inspector in addition to the duties of his original post of LDC. That order was passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Jaipur. The only case set up by respondents No. 3 and 4 is that the petitioner had never been appointed on the post of Revenue Inspector and his mere working against the post of Revenue Inspector does not entitle him to claim salary of that post. In relation to Chiranji Lal petitioner, it is not disputed by the respondents that he had been appointed on the post of Beldar and it is also admitted that he was transferred from Motor Garage to General Provident Fund/Provident Fund Branch for doing accounts work and later on he was allotted the work of octroi, garden, receipt and despatch clerk The respondents have pleaded that a large number of persons were working against the post on which they had not been appointed and this was leading to serious complication. Consequently, the order dated May 12, 1989 was issued by the Administrator requiring that such persons should work on their principal post. It is said that no legal rights of the petitioner were infringed by the impugned order. Consequently, the order dated May 12, 1989 was issued by the Administrator requiring that such persons should work on their principal post. It is said that no legal rights of the petitioner were infringed by the impugned order. As regards Babu Lal petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2224/1989, respondents No 3 and 4 have pleaded that the petitioner had not given details of the persons who had been promoted as LDC without possessing the requisite qualifications. It is stated that the petitioner was never appointed on the post of LDC and he has never held that post and, therefore, he has no right to the said post. In Matadeen Sharmas writ petition, although power was filed by Mr. J.K. Singhi on behalf of the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur, but in this case, an interim stay was granted by this Court on May 25, 1989 to the effect that the petitioner will perform the same duties which he was already performing. The respondents have filed an application under Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the stay order. It has been mentioned by the respondents that the petitioner had been appointed as Beldar. However, it is admitted that he was transferred and posted by an order dated August 24, 1987 as LDC in the establishment section. Thereafter he was allotted the work in Establishment Section and Provident Fund Section and he was continuing to work there. However, it is assorted that the services of the petitioner cannot be regularised on the post of LDC against rules. The impugned orders are said not to be arbitrary, illegal or unjust. Since the petitioner was not holding the post of LDC on regular post, there was nothing wrong in asking him to discharge the function of his original post by order dated May 12, 1989 and the subsequent order dated May 20, 1989. 8. From the narration of facts in these four writ petitions, it would appear that all these petitioners had been appointed in Municipal Council, Jaipur on lower posts, but they were required to perform the duties of higher posts. Kamlesh Chand Meena, appointed as LDC, was directed to work on the post of Revenue Inspector, which was a higher post. Chiranji Lal was appointed is Beldar, but he was required to work on the post of LDC in various sections of the Municipal Council, Jaipur. Kamlesh Chand Meena, appointed as LDC, was directed to work on the post of Revenue Inspector, which was a higher post. Chiranji Lal was appointed is Beldar, but he was required to work on the post of LDC in various sections of the Municipal Council, Jaipur. Babu Lal was appointed as Class IV employee, but he was required to work on the post of LDC. Matadeen Sharma was appointed as Beldar. From him, also, work of the post of LDC was taken by the Municipal Council, Jaipur. Sec. 302 of the Rajasthan Municipalities, 1959 provides that as soon as may be after the commencement of the Act, there shall be created and constituted by the State Government for the whole of the Slate a Service designated as the Rajasthan Municipal Service. The Service shall be divided into different categories, each category being sub-divided into different grades, and shall consist of officers, administrative as well as technical. Then sec. 303 states that for the purpose of creating and constituting the Service, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette (a) divide municipalities in the State into classes according to their income and other circumstances; (b) transfer a municipality from one class to another class. Sec 304 states that upon the creation and constitution of the Service, appointments to all posts therein shall, subject to any rules under sec. 297 and notwithstanding anything in the rules under section 88, be made in accordance with the provisions of section 307 (a) by direct recruitment (b) by promotion, or (c) by transfer. Section 307 deals with Administrative Officers, like Commissioner,Executive Officer and Secretary. Sec. 308 provides that subject as aforesaid the State Government may appoint a Health Officer, a Municipal Engineer, a Revenue Officer, or any other officer for the performance in a Municipality of such special or technical duties under the Act as may be prescribed. Sec. 309 deals with determination of strength of the staff. The Municipal Council can by resolution determine the number of assossors, sanitary inspectors, other inspectors, and subordinate officers, accountants and ministerial establishment and other servants required for the municipality. This has to be done subject to any general or special direction issued by the State Government. Sec. 309 deals with determination of strength of the staff. The Municipal Council can by resolution determine the number of assossors, sanitary inspectors, other inspectors, and subordinate officers, accountants and ministerial establishment and other servants required for the municipality. This has to be done subject to any general or special direction issued by the State Government. Sec. 310 of the Act is a crucial section and it inter alia provides that a sanitary inspector or other inspector or subordinate officer or accountant or a member of the ministerial establishment shall be appointed by the Municipal Council. This is subject to the provisions of Sections 304 and 306 of the Act and of any rules under section 297 or any other provisions of this Act. 9. In pursuance of the powers conferred by Sec. 297, the State Government made the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963. Thus, in subordinate service, various posts like Revenue Inspector and the ministerial service posts like Lower Division Clerk were included. Methods of recruitment to those posts is provided by Rule 8 of the Rules (a) by appointment in the lowest grade of each category; (b) by promotion from the lower to a higher grade in the same category; (c) by transfer of persons holding corresponding posts under a Board and (d) by taking an official on deputation from the State Government. The ratio of filling up the vacancies by direct recruitment and promotion is to be 50:50 unless otherwise provided. Direct recruitment is made through the commission constituted by the Government for the purpose of direct recruitment to the Service. Promotion is made by Promotion Board constituted in the manner provided by Rule 23. Revenue Inspector and Ministerial Establishment stall is appointed by the Municipal Council and, thus, the Municipal Council is the Appointing Authority for this purpose. 10. It is clear from the facts of the case that none of the petitioners were appointed to higher post than to which they were appointed by any regular method of selection, either by direct recruitment or by promotion in accordance with the Rajasthan Municipalities (Subordinate & Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963. However, it is also a fact that although the petitioners were appointed on a lower post, but under various orders they were required to perform the duties of a higher post for a considerable time. However, it is also a fact that although the petitioners were appointed on a lower post, but under various orders they were required to perform the duties of a higher post for a considerable time. It was as late as on May 12, 1989 that it dawned upon the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur that under several Regional Commissioners, Commissioners and other departments, the employees were working on posts other than on which they were appointed and the Administrator directed that such employees should be reverted to their principal post on which they were appointed and should not be allowed to continue on the higher posts on which they were working. It is true that the petitioners had acquired no legal right to continue to work on the higher posts for the simple reason that their appointments to the higher posts were not made in accordance with the above-mentioned Service Rules of 1963. However, the Municipal Council, Jaipur or its authorities had no power, competence or jurisdiction to require a person, appointed on a lower post, to perform the duties of a higher post, to which he was not appointed. Again, the Municipal Council, Jaipur and its functionaries required the petitioners to perform the duties of higher posts like Revenue Inspector, Lower Division Clerk etc. despite the fact that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk, Beldar and Class IV employee. This is nothing short of exploitation by the Municipal Council, Jaipur. Art 23 of the Constitution of India contains whole-some provision that traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. The action of the Municipal Council, Jaipur and its functionaries does amount to taking begar from employees in relation to higher post without payment to them of the higher salary and, on payment to them of lower salary corresponding to the post to which they were principally appointed. 11. I had an occasion to deal with similar matter in Arun Kumar Tiwari vs. Municipal Council, Jaipur (1) decided on September 26, 1989. I may quote my observations made in Arun Kumars case (supra) as under:- "The statutory authorities who are charged with the discharge of statutory functions should discharge their functions in accordance with the statute or should not discharge them at all. I may quote my observations made in Arun Kumars case (supra) as under:- "The statutory authorities who are charged with the discharge of statutory functions should discharge their functions in accordance with the statute or should not discharge them at all. It appears from the facts of the present case that various authorities of the Municipal Council, Jaipur have acted in gross violation of the Statute and they have exploited the persons who had been appointed on daily wages as Gangmen or Beldar, by taking from them work of a Lower Division Clerk. We do not know whether there were any sanctioned post of LDC or not. If there were no sanctioned posts, what business the authorities of the Municipal Council, Jaipur had to take the work from Gangman and Beldar as typist or LDC. If there were posts, they did not make appointments on those posts in accordance with the Service Rules framed under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. One can understand from the order of the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur, that realising after 8 years, he issued the impugned order that such employees should be required to do only those work on which they were principally appointed. It cannot, however, be said that the persons who held the office of Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur were ignorant of this wholesome exploitation by the authorities of the Municipal Council. What action the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur has taken against those officials who had exploited these gangmen and beldars ? Simultaneously, with the order Annexure/4, a stringent action was also called for gainst those higher authorities of Municipal Council, Jaipur who believed in exploitation and violation of law and abuse of their statutory functions. Why those persons should suffer who were exploited and who were qualified and from whom the work of Lower Division Clerk and Typists was taken." 12. On behalf of the respondents, in their counter in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2305/1989, a reference has been made to a decision of this Court in Rajendra K. Mathur vs. Municipal Council, Jaipur,(2) decided on July 27, 1989 and in the Special Appeal filed against that order and decided on August 8, 1989 it was urged that the validity of the order dated May 12, 1989 issued by the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur was upheld. 13. 13. I have perused the file of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2192/1989, Rajendra K. Mathur Vs. Municipal Council, Jaipur, (supra) decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on July 27, 1989. It is clear from the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in that case, that his order does not run counter to what I have observed. The learned Single Judge himself has observed as under:- "A person should not be asked to perform the duties of any other post in addition to the post on which he is appointed. If additional work is taken, any person who is doing additional work can claim the benefit of additional work according to the rules*. 14. The learned Single Judge upheld the validity of the order dated May 12,1989. That I am also holding. The question is only with regard to the pay-ment to the petitioners of difference of remuneration between the posts on which they were required to work. Special Appeal was filed by Rajendra Kumar Mathur before a Division Bench and the appeal was dismissed. The decision, therefore, was that the order dated May 12, 1989 of the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur was valid. However, this decision is not an authority for the proposition that the petitioners who had worked on higher posts are not entitled to the pay of the posts on which they have actually worked. 15. I am clearly of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get the difference of pay and other allowances between the posts on which they were appointed and the posts on which they were actually required to work during any period. 16. I, therefore, partly allow all these four writ petitions and while I up-hold the validity of the order of the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur, dated May 12, 1989 and follow-up orders, I direct that the respondents, Municipal Council, Jaipur, would pay to all the four petitioners the difference of salary and allwoances between the posts on which they were principally appointed and the posts on which they actually worked till their revision to the principal posts. The Municipal Council, Jaipur is directed to make payment of this difference and the arrears within three months from the date of this order.