JUDGMENT 1. - The above-mentioned five writ petitions involve same point of law for consideration, and therefore, they are disposed of by one order. All the petitioners have prayed in their writ petitions that they should be regularised on the post of Class IV employees under the respondents and be given same salary from the date of each of the petitioners joining as daily wage employee, as the regular employees on the same job are getting and further that they are also entitled to the same conditions of service as the regular employees are entitled. 2. The petitioners were appointed on different dates from the year, 1983 onwards on daily wage basis as Class IV employees in Circuit Houses and are presently working in Circuit Houses at Alwar, Ajmer and Jaipur. It is submitted by Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, that Government of Rajasthan, keeping in view' the difficulties of the Dignitaries staying at various Circuit Houses under respondent No. 1, issued a circular dated September 4, 1982 (Anx 2), empowering the appropriate authorities to appoint employees on daily wage basis in various Circuit Houses against sanctioned vacant posts. Therefore, the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis as Class IV employees by respondent No. 2. Their services were some times terminated, but were again re-employed. Petitioners are now working continuously i.e. Ratti Lal since May 1, 1986, Kailash Chand since July 4, 1985, Mahendra Singh April 12, 1986, Chhotelal since December 23, 1986 and Mithlesh Kumar since June 8, 1988 in various Circuit Houses. It is submitted that the petitioners had to join on daily wages under compelling circumstances, since they had no other choice and, therefore, accepted the exploitative terms offered by the respondents. It is contended that petitioners are discharging the same duties as are performed by the regular employees of the same cadre, but instead of full salary paid to the regular employees, the petitioners are getting daily wages at the rate of only Rs. 14/- per day, which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the Directive Principles of the State Policy. It is submitted that they may be given same salary and conditions of service on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" as is given to the regular employees and they may also be regularised. 14/- per day, which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the Directive Principles of the State Policy. It is submitted that they may be given same salary and conditions of service on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" as is given to the regular employees and they may also be regularised. It is also submitted that petitioner Ratti Lal is a member of Scheduled Caste and, therefore, entitled to special protection. 3. The submission of Shri L.K. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, is that reply has been filed in the petition No. 110/89, which may be treated to be reply filed in all the petitions on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that the petitioners are working as Class IV employees in the Circuit Houses mentioned in their petitions. It is further submitted that the nature of the work performed by the petitioners and regular Class IV employees is different, inasmuch as, responsible work cannot be assigned to daily wage employees. Therefore, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not applicable so far as the petitioners are concerned. Apart from this, it is contended that the petitioners cannot be regularised until and unless they are selected by a regular Selection Committee. Presently there is ban on regular fresh appointments and as and when the ban is lifted by the State Government on regular appointments, the case of the petitioners can also be considered for regular appointments, after following the due process of selection. It is submitted that the petitioners never submitted any application/representation to the respondents for regularisation. 4. I have heard both the counsel and also gone through the documents placed on record. 5. The contention of the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the nature of the duties performed by the petitioners is not similar to that of the regular employees in the same cadre, has no force and it has not been specified in what manner, the nature of work performed by the petitioners is not similar to that performed by the regular employees in the same cadre. Evidently, the petitioners are performing the same work as the regular Class IV employees are performing and therefore, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is applicable to the petitioners. Evidently, the petitioners are performing the same work as the regular Class IV employees are performing and therefore, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is applicable to the petitioners. They are entitled to get same emoluments as the Class IV employees employed in regular cadre are getting. It may also be mentioned that daily wage workers are kept for casual jobs, the duration of which is uncertain, therefore, no regular appointment/employment can be given on such jobs. The nature of the work performed by the petitioners, who are working on daily wage basis is such that they are continuing to do so since several years, which shows that the nature of job performed by the petitioners is not casual in any way and permanent in nature, and, therefore, similar as performed by those Class IV employees, who are regular employees. On this account also, the petitioners are entitled to get equal pay, as is paid to the regular employees of Class IV cadre. 6. So far as the regularisation of the services of the petitioners are concerned, no order can be passed in this respect as it has been rightly pointed out by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that this matter can only be considered when the regular appointments are made after the ban on regular appointments is lifted by the State. Before a regular appointment is given to any person, it is only expected that he will go through a test of whatever kind as may be prescribed by a Selection Committee and pass out the same and be considered fit for such appointment before a tegular appointment is given to a person. 7. So far as the question of conditions of service is concerned, it is evident that the petitioners are performing the same duties as regular Class IV employee appointed in regular cadre are performing. Similarly, because the petitioners were given daily wages for all these years, the other benefits of the service conditions cannot be denied to them on this ground as this will be against the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Article declares equality before law and equal protection of law should, therefore, be provided to the petitioners. The Article declares equality before law and equal protection of law should, therefore, be provided to the petitioners. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get not only same salary, but same conditions of service except privilege/earned leave as regular Class IV employees are getting. I am fortified in my opinion by the case of Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. ( 1986 (1) SCC 637 ) , in which it was held by the Apex Court that so long as the daily wage workers are performing the same duties, they shall receive the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees are receiving. 8. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioners shall get the minimum salary plus allowances in the pay scale, which is given to regular Class IV employees, who are regularly employed. The ends of justice will be met, if the same is given to each of the petitioners from the date of filing of the petitions in this Court. The petitioners shall also be entitled to same service conditions, except earned/privilege leave which are enjoyed by Class IV employees, who are employed in regular cadre. It is also directed that as and when the ban on fresh regular appointments is lifted, the petitioners shall also be considered in the same way as other persons are considered for giving regular appointments as Class IV servants. 9. The writ petitions are partly allowed, as indicated above, without any orders as to costs.Petitions partly allowed. *******