I.S. ISRANI, J.—This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the petitioner may be allowed to continue on the post of driver with all consequential benefits. 2. It is submitted by Mr. R.S. Mehta, learned counsel, that petitioner is working in substantive capacity on post of Cleaner and was asked to render the services of the Driver from August 13, 1983 and was assigned the job of driving heavy vehicles. A copy of order in this respect (Annex.1) dated April 25, 1984 has been placed on record. The driving licence of heavy vehicles has been filed and marked as Anx. 2. It is pointed out that since the petitioner was not paid the emoluments of a driver, a D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 910/88 was filed in this court by the petitioner, which was disposed of on December 22, 1988, by which, the petition was allowed and it was directed that the petitioner be paid the minimum basic salary of the post of driver from March, 1986 on the principle of equal wages for equal work. It is further pointed out that respondent No.3, Mr. V.D. Vyas Commissioner, Municipal Council, Ajmer, was involved in embezzlement case and Anti-Corruption Department conducted an enquiry in the same and the case has been filed in the court of law, where it is pending. This petitioner was working as Chowkidar at the relevant time and his statement was recorded by the Anti-Corruption department Authorities and subsequently, respondent No. 3, pressurised petitioner to change his statement in his favour, which the petitioner refused to do. It is contended that with a view to harass and pressurise the petitioner, order dated May 29, 1989 (Anx.4) Was issued, directing that all those cleaners, who are working on the post of driver, be assigned the work of cleaner and work of driver should not be taken from them. This order was made applicable to petitioner and nine other persons, who were also working on the post of driver. It is further contended that inspite of this order, two persons belonging to SC (Harijans) working on daily wages, namely, Jagdish Prasad and Vimal have been retained to work as driver, even though, the petitioner is having higher experience as an driver. It is further contended that inspite of this order, two persons belonging to SC (Harijans) working on daily wages, namely, Jagdish Prasad and Vimal have been retained to work as driver, even though, the petitioner is having higher experience as an driver. It is further pointed that alongwith rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, an order dated August 3, 1989 (Anx.12) has been subsequently issued, in which six persons have been taken to work as driver. The first three in this list are cleaners, who are juniors to petitioner and the other three persons are working as Sweepers, who could not be assigned the work of driving as their first promotion will be on the post of cleaner and, thereafter, they can be promoted on the post of driver. It is also pointed out that Jagdish s/o Birdha, Sweeper at S.No. 4 in the order mentioned above has been posted in Circle 2 in place of the petitioner, which shows that the respondents continued to have need of the services of the petitioner but have deliberately removed him from this post out of vengeance. It is contended by the learned counsel that this is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 his and discriminative. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Virendra Lodha learned counsel, that as a policy matter, all the persons, who were holding the post of cleaner but were not working as cleaner were directed to be assigned the work of the posts held by each of them. Therefore, no rights of the petitioner are involved or violated as he is holding post of cleaner and has been assigned the work on the post of cleaner. It is claimed that petitioner had no right to work on the post of driver. It is also pointed out that Anx. 4 applied to all the persons, who are working as drivers, even though, they were holding the post of cleaner. Therefore, question of causing any harassment to the petitioner on account of pressure of respondent No. 3 does not arise. It is further pointed out that it is clear from Anx.12 that these six persons made applications and prayed that they may be allowed to work as driver and further stated that they will not claim any additional salary/emoluments/allowance, on account of working as driver. It is further pointed out that it is clear from Anx.12 that these six persons made applications and prayed that they may be allowed to work as driver and further stated that they will not claim any additional salary/emoluments/allowance, on account of working as driver. It is therefore, pointed out that all these persons, even though, working as drivers, are drawing the salary of the posts on which they have been appoined, i.e., cleaner and sweeper. The learned counsel has referred to decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2549/89 (Omprakash v. Municipal Council), in which a similar matter had arisen. This was also a case in which the administrator, Municipal Council, Jaipur had issued a direction that all person, who are working on some other posts than on which they were originally appointed, be withdrawn and given to do the work for which they are posted. In this case, some LDCs. were actually given work of Assistant Sanitary Inspector. It was, therefore, held in the above mentioned petition as also in two other similar writ petitions that they were not entitled to remain on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector any more, but, were entitled to receive the minimum of the pay-scale of this post for the time they worked on the same. It is therefore, contended that order (Anx.4) is perfectly legal and the six persons mentioned in order (Anx.12) have been allowed to work on the post of driver, since they have given up their claim of any extra allowance/emoluments, on account of working on the post of driver. 4. The order (Anx.4) gives a general direction that all such cleaners, who are working on the post of driver, should be assigned the duties of cleaner and none of them should be assigned work of driver henceforth. It also mentions that, if any officer assign work of driver to a cleaner, he will do so at his own risk and cost and that respondent No. 2 Municipal Council, Ajmer shall not be responsible for it. Thus, it cannot be said that this order is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 as claimed by the petitioner. This order has nothing to do with the Anti-Corruption proceedings pending against respondent No3, regarding which, the petitioner claims to have been pressurised to change his statement. However, the matter does not end here. Subsequently, order (Anx. Thus, it cannot be said that this order is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 as claimed by the petitioner. This order has nothing to do with the Anti-Corruption proceedings pending against respondent No3, regarding which, the petitioner claims to have been pressurised to change his statement. However, the matter does not end here. Subsequently, order (Anx. 12) has been issued, by which three cleaners and three sweepers have been assigned to do work of driver, becuase they have given an undertaking that they will not claim additional allowance/ emoluments, which are given to the driver. The respondent No. 2 is an instrumentality of State and it is expected to behave as a model employer and not to exploit its employees, because they are helpless and cannot displease their superior officers. It is evident that the petitioner, who knocked at the doors of this Court, even earlier, as stated above, to get equal wages for equal work and has been working on the post of driver since 1983, cannot be thrown out from this post in the garb of on order (Anx.4), by which, all cleaners have been directed to be given work of their post and are not to be assigned work of a dirver. Thereafter, within few months, go bye has been given to order (Anx.4), and another order has been issued, by which, six persons have been assigned work of a driver, even though three of them are cleaners an junior to petitioner & three are sweepers. The implication of this order (Anx.12) is that the if petitioner also offers to perform the duty of driver without claiming equal pay for equal work, he will also be allowed to work on the post of driver. Thus, this way seems to have been found out to over-come the order dated December 22, 1988 passed by this Court, by which, the petitioner was directed to be given equal wages for equal work. The respondents cannot be permitted to circumvent the order passed by this Court in the garb of Anx. 4 and Anx.12. The petitioner has been discriminated again by the respondent No. 2 by not allowing him to work as driver, even though, six other persons have been allowed to work as driver vide order (Anx.12). The respondents cannot be permitted to circumvent the order passed by this Court in the garb of Anx. 4 and Anx.12. The petitioner has been discriminated again by the respondent No. 2 by not allowing him to work as driver, even though, six other persons have been allowed to work as driver vide order (Anx.12). Apart from.this, the petitioner has been working as driversirice 1983 and now he has been stopped from working as driver, while new persons have been assigned this job. 5. It may also be mentioned that ten posts of drivers are lying vacant, out of which, 50% have to be filled up by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. The another way to exploit the low paid employees is not to fill the vacancies and go on taking work from persons holding lower posts, without giving them the wages to which they are entitled when they are taking work on a higher post. This is highly deprecated. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed, the petitioner shall be assigned work of a driver and given equal wages for equal work as ordered by this Court in earlier writ petition mentioned above within 15 days from the date of this order. 7. The petition is allowed. The respondents shall pay Rs. 1000/- as costs to petitioner within two months.