JUDGMENT 1. - This is a writ petition by Ashok Kumar Sharma under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated September 8, 1988 (Annexure - 8) issued by the Collector Jhunjhunu extending the term of appointment on daily wages of the petitioner upto Sept. 30, 1988 and for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuous service and for appointing him as Lower Division Clerk on a regular pay scale prescribed for the post from the date of his initial appointment and for allowing him regular increments and other consequential benefits. 2. By an order of Collector Jhunjhunu dated November 21, 1986 (Annexure-1) the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in Collectorate Jhunjhunu on daily wages of Rs. 15/- per day. According to the petitioner in Annexure-1 no period of temporary appointment was specified and consequently his appointment has to be treated as temporary appointment against the post of Lower Division Clerk for an unspecified period. This appointment was made during the period when Ministrial employees all over the State of Rajasthan were on strike and further during the period of Panchayat Elections held in the State the petitioner served the State during crucial period. However on April 14, 1987 the Collector Jhunjhunu issued an order Annexure-2 stating that in the conditions of famine in samvat 2043 in order to assist in the completion of famine relief works the petitioner is appointed as Lower Division Clerk on newly created temporary posts upto July 31, 1987. By another order dated Dec. 4, 1987 (Annexure-5) for similar famine works in samvat 2044 the petitioner was appointed on the temporary post of Lower Division Clerk on daily wages of Rs. 20/- per day for 30 days and by order Annexure-6 dated Dec. 23, 1987 he was posted at Tehsil Nawalgarh. The order Annexure-7 dated October 8, 1987 of the Government of Rajasthan in Relief Department goes to show that in Jhunjhunu district three temporary posts of Lower Division Clerks were sanctioned upto February 29, 1988 and these posts were to be filled in by appointing persons on daily wages. In pursuance of the order of Collector Jhunjhunu dated Sept. 6, 1988 the term of temporary appointment of the petitioner and others were ex- tended upto Sept. 30, 1988. In pursuance of the order of Collector Jhunjhunu dated Sept. 6, 1988 the term of temporary appointment of the petitioner and others were ex- tended upto Sept. 30, 1988. Ultimately a relieving order dated October 3, 1988 (Annexure-9) was passed by the Assistant Chief Election Officer Jaipur relieving the petitioner from his appointment as Lower Division Clerk in the afternoon of the said date. 3. The petitioner asserts that under the provisions of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules 1957 for appointment of Ministerial staff in Subordinate Offices there is no provision for appointment of a person as Lower Division Clerk on daily wages as was done illegally in the petitioner's case. According to Rule 7(b) of the said Rules the initial recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk is to be made out of the candidates declared successful at the competitive examination to be held periodically by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Under Rule 26(3) of the Rules a person can be appointed on urgent temporary basis as Lower Division Clerk pending his substantive appointment out of regular selection. As the petitioner was appointed against temporary post of Lower Division Clerk he was entitled to payment of salary according to the pay scale prescribed for the post. The petitioner has also invoked the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'. It is said that the duties performed by the petitioner cannot be treated to be duties performed for unanticipated work which is done by casual worker appointed on daily wages for unspecified and unanticipated work. Petitioner was therefore entitled for payment of salary as admissible to a regularly recruited Lower Division Clerk. It is said that petitioner's case is also covered by the relevant provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as he had rendered more than 240 days of continuous service and the termination of his services was therefore illegal and bad in law. Notice of at least one month or pay in lieu thereof was necessary but neither any notice was given to the petitioner nor pay in lieu of notice was given to him. The termination of his appointment was therefore illegal and arbitrary. Notice of at least one month or pay in lieu thereof was necessary but neither any notice was given to the petitioner nor pay in lieu of notice was given to him. The termination of his appointment was therefore illegal and arbitrary. On the basis of these averments the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order Annexure-8 and for a direction to the respondents to treat him in continuous service and for appointing him as Lower Division Clerk in a regular pay scale prescribed for the post from the date of his initial appointment i.e. November 21, 1986 and further for allowing him regular increments in the pay scale with other consequential benefits. 4. A reply to the writ petition was filed by Collector Jhunjhunu where it has been stated that due to strike of Ministrial employees and to perform urgent temporary work the petitioner was appointed on daily wages. The appointment given to the petitioner on November 21, 1986 by Annexure-1 came to an end on December 5, 1986 and after that the petitioner was no more a daily wages employee. The petitioner was given new appointment in famine relief work on the post of Lower Division Clerk which was a newly created temporary post for relief work. The petitioner worked on this post from April 14, 1987 to August 31, 1987. After that the petitioner was given appointment and posted at Nawalgarh by order dated December 23, 1987. As the temporary posts created for famine work ended on Sept. 30, 1988 services of the petitioner were discontinued. The petitioner was no more in employment of the respondents after Sept. 30, 1988. He was never deputed for election duties. The petitioner's case was covered by the provisions of the Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act 1964 and therefore the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 do not apply to the case of the petitioner. As the petitioner was appointed on daily wages and his appointment was not under the rules the petitioner was not entitled to the same pay scale as is admissible to a regularly selected Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner himself states that his appointment was not in accordance with the rules and he is therefore not entitled to claim the reliefs prayed for. 5. The petitioner himself states that his appointment was not in accordance with the rules and he is therefore not entitled to claim the reliefs prayed for. 5. It is the petitioner's own case that the appointment given to him on the post of Lower Division Clerk by order dated November 21, 1986 (Ann.1) was given during the period of strike of Ministerial employees all over the State of Rajasthan and when Panchayat elections were going to be held. This appointment was given on daily wages. It is true that no period of appointment is specified in the order of appointment dated November 21, 1986. But it is the petitioner's own admission that this appointment was given due to strike of State Government employees. The Tehsildar Jhunjhunu has filed a counter-affidavit in support of the reply of the respondent No. 2 that the appointment which was given to the petitioner on November 21, 1986 came to an end on December 5, 1986 and the appointment given to him by order dated April 14, 1987 upto July 31, 1987 was a fresh temporary appointment on daily wages as against the temporary posts of LDC sanctioned in connection with famine relief work on account of famine conditions in samvat 2043. The petitioner has not given any rejoinder to this reply and has not shown that he continued to work as LDC after December 61986 and upto the date Annexure-2 dated April 14, 1987 was issued. Thereafter due to famine conditions prevalent in samvat 2044 also the petitioner's term of appointment was extended and the post extension was by Annexure- 8 upto Sept. 30 1988. According to respondents the temporary post created for famine works came to an end on Sept. 30 1988 and therefore services of the petitioner were discontinued on that date. This assertion of the respondent No. 2 finds support from the fact that the relieving order Annexure-9 dated October 3 1988 was issued by Assistant Chief Election Officer Jaipur relieving the petitioner from the post of Lower Division Clerk in the office of District Election Officer (Collector) Jhunjhunu. It seems from Annexure-9 that the petitioner had a brief spell of appointment after the famine relief posts had ended on Sept. 30 1988 and three days thereafter the petitioner was relieved not from the post of LDC in famine relief work but from the office of District Election Officer (Collector) Jhunjhunu. It seems from Annexure-9 that the petitioner had a brief spell of appointment after the famine relief posts had ended on Sept. 30 1988 and three days thereafter the petitioner was relieved not from the post of LDC in famine relief work but from the office of District Election Officer (Collector) Jhunjhunu. 6. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that initial recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerks in Subordinate Offices is made under the provisions of Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules 1957 and according to the provisions of these rules initial recruitment is made out of the candidates declared successful at the competitive examination to be held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The appointment of the petitioner was at best an urgent temporary appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk against the temporary post created firstly due to an urgent situation created by the strike of ministerial employees in the State and thereafter on account of famine conditions prevalent in samvats 2043 and 2044 in connection with famine relief works. For these works temporary posts of temporary duration were created and the appointing authority did not choose to make regular recruitments through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and made urgent temporary appointments for short duration. When the period for which the temporary posts were created came to an end the petitioner's appointment stood terminated with the expiry of the terms of temporary posts. It is clear from orders Annexure-2 and 5 that the posts were temporary and were created in connection with the performance of famine works due to famine conditions in samvats 2043 and 2044. This fact is also borne out from the order of the State Government in Relief Department dated October 8, 1987 (Ann. 7). The provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 did not apply to temporary posts created in connection with famine relief works on account of the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act 1964. The termination of the petitioner's services therefore is not governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2404/87 (Murari Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and others) decided on Sept. The termination of the petitioner's services therefore is not governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2404/87 (Murari Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and others) decided on Sept. 27, 1988 to contend that in a similar case this Court had quashed the order of termination of services of an LDC. A certified copy of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Murari Lal Sharma's case has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure-12. I have gone through the order passed by this Court in Murari Lal Sharma's case and it would appear from going through the order that the case of Murari Lal Sharma was that he had been appointed as Lower Division Clerk on daily wages of Rs. 15/- per day on May 211985 and his services were terminated on August 7, 1986. It was further alleged by Murari Lal Sharma that one Hanuman Prasad Meena who was junior to him and who had been appointed as LDC on December 10, 1985 was given regular appointment as LDC w.e.f. February 24, 1986. It is pertinent to note that no reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents in Murari Lal Sharma's case (supra) and as his case went unrebutted by the respondents the Division Bench therefore found that the averments made by Murari Lal Sharma in his writ petition were correct and that while persons junior to Murari Lai Sharma were continued in employment and were also given regular appointment as Lower Division Clerks services of Murali Lal Sharma were terminated. On this ground the Division Bench quashed the order dated August 7, 1986 terminating the services of the petitioner in that case and further allowed him the same pay which was being paid to other Lower Division Clerks in regular pay scale. On this ground the Division Bench quashed the order dated August 7, 1986 terminating the services of the petitioner in that case and further allowed him the same pay which was being paid to other Lower Division Clerks in regular pay scale. In the present case it is not at all the case of petitioner Ashok Kumar Sharma that when his employment came to an end on account of the expiry of the terms of temporary post sanctioned in connection with famine relief work any Lower Division Clerk junior to him was retained by respondent No. 2 as Lower Division Clerk that services of any such similar Lower Division Clerks junior to the petitioner were regularised. In the absence of such an averment in the writ petition and such a case it cannot be held that the decision in Murari Lal Sharma's case applies to the petitioner's case. The petitioner's entire case is that termination of his service without notice of one month or pay is in lieu of notice was illegal. When appointment is made on temporary post of fixed term there is no question of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice. The temporary appointment comes to an end by efflux of the term of the temporary post. As already stated the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 do not have application to temporary pasts sanctioned in connection with famine relief works on account of the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act 1964. 8. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was not correct to treat the petitioner as a casual labour and that he should have been paid salary according to regular pay scale admissible to a Lower Division Clerk. This contention of the petitioner has force in it. As already stated the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk as a measure of urgent temporary appointment firstly on account of strike of ministerial staff in Rajasthan and thereafter on temporary post of Lower Division Clerks created in Jhunjhunu district in connection with famine relief works on account of famine conditions in samvats 2043 and 2044. As already stated the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk as a measure of urgent temporary appointment firstly on account of strike of ministerial staff in Rajasthan and thereafter on temporary post of Lower Division Clerks created in Jhunjhunu district in connection with famine relief works on account of famine conditions in samvats 2043 and 2044. Obviously during the period of his temporary appointments made from time to time the petitioner was performing all the duties which are required to be performed by a Lower Division Clerk. Doctrine of equal pay for equal work therefore applied and in the matter of pay the petitioner could not be discriminated against with other Lower Division Clerks. He is entitled to get the minimum of the time scale of pay of Lower Division Clerks together with dearness allowance admissible under the rules in respect of the periods during which he has held the post of Lower Division Clerk under orders Annexure-1, 2, 5 and 8. 9. The petitioner is however not entitled to be continued as Lower Division Clerk after he was relieved from the post on account of the term of the post coming to an end. 10. I therefore partly allow this writ petition and direct the respondents by a writ of mandamus to pay to the petitioner the difference between the amount of daily wages paid to him and the minimum of the regular pay-scale prescribed for the post of Lower Division Clerk with dearness allowance thereon in respect of the periods during which the petitioner has held appointment on the temporary post of Lower Division Clerk under the orders of the Collector Jhunjhunu dated November 21 1986 April 14, 1987 December 4, 1987 and September 6, 1988 (Annexure-1, 2, 5 and 8) filed along with the writ petition. The payment of the above difference of amount shall be made to the petitioner by the respondents within three months from the date of this order. The petitioner is also awarded Rs. 500/- as costs for the reason that while he was required to perform the duties of Lower Division Clerk he was only paid daily wages which was not permissible and which also amounted to hostile discrimination in the matter of payment of pay and allowances.Petition party allowed with costs. *******