JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that respondents be directed to fix the petitioner in regular pay-scale and allowances as admissible to Lower Division Clerk appointed on regular basis or in the alternative in the cadre of Class IV with all consequential benefits. 2. It is submitted by Shri Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel that petitioner has been appointed as Class-IV servant in office of respondent No. 3 Mahila Chikitsalya, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur on April 1, 1989 on daily wages of Rs. 14/- per day. It is submitted that petitioner has passed Second Year Arts but on account of unemployment and family needs he had no choice, to accept whatever job was offered to him on the wages of the choice of the respondent No. 3. It is contended that as stated in para 3 of the petition, the petitioner is in fact working as L.D.C. in the office of respondent No. 3 and is working specifically in the establishment Section and maintained despatch and receipt-registers and also working as Typist (English). It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner should be given minimum wages in the pay-scale given to those who are working in regular pay-scale as L.D.C. 3. It is pointed out by Shri L.K. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate that petitioner has been appointed on daily wages basis as Class-IV Servant and does not perform the work of L.D.C. However, it is admitted as mentioned in para 3 of the return that in absence of the L.D.C. the petitioner some times discharged the duties as L.D.C. to maintain Despatch and Receipt register. It is further contended that the petitioner is not entitled to get minimum salary in the scale of Class-IV Servant as there is different classifications so far as the work assigned to him is concerned, even though he may have been appointed as Class-IV Servant. On account of these different classifications of the work assigned to him, he was given daily-wages and is not entitled to minimum in the regular pay-scale. 4. On account of these different classifications of the work assigned to him, he was given daily-wages and is not entitled to minimum in the regular pay-scale. 4. So far as the question of petitioner's work regularly as L.D.C. and performing the duties of L.D.C. is given out above on behalf of the petitioner, the same is denied by the respondents even though it has been admitted that he some time works as L.D.C in absence of the regular person appointed on the post of L.D.C. Therefore, this Court shall not enter into any research work to find out that how many days in a month petitioner is working as L.D.C. or as Class IV Servant. Therefore, since this is a disputed question of fact, I am of the view that petitioner is not entitled to get minimum salary in the pay-scale given to a regularly appointed L.D.C. 5. So far as the question of 'equal pay for equal work' is concerned Shri L.K. Sharma has placed reliance on Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India (1989) 4 S.C.C. 187 . The Apex Court in the above noted case held that although the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' does not come within Article 14 as an abstract doctrine, but if any classification is made relating to the pay-scales and such classification is unreasonable and/or if based on no classification, then Article 14 will at once be attracted and such classification should be set at naught and equal pay may be directed to be given. In other words, where unequal pay has brought about a discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 it will be a case of equal pay for equal work as envisaged by Article 14. I am afraid this authority is of no help to respondents. It has been further clarified by the Apex Court that if the classification is proper and reasonable and has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved, the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' will not have any application. This is not applicable to the case of petitioner, because there is no classification of the work which may have been shown by the respondent to entitle them to pay the petitioner less wages than as a regular person appointed as L.D.C. gets. This is not applicable to the case of petitioner, because there is no classification of the work which may have been shown by the respondent to entitle them to pay the petitioner less wages than as a regular person appointed as L.D.C. gets. Moreover, I am very clear that this classification in any case is not applicable to such persons who are getting daily wages and are not getting minimum salary in regular pay-scale at all. Neither any classification has been shown to exist between the work performed by petitioner as Class IV Servant and the work performed by a person who is regularly appointed as Class-IV Servant, nor the petitioner is getting salary according to any scale whatsoever. 6. There is no doubt that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is fully attracted in the case of the petitioner and it is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall get minimum salary in the pay-scale given to regularly selected Class-IV Servant alongwith the allowances from the date of filing of the writ petition, i.e., January 15, 1990. 7. The compliance of this order should be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******