JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have filed this writ petition claiming the relief for regularisation of services as Class IV Employees coupled with the relief of the minimum pay of the prescribed pay scale for Class IV Employees on the basis of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. 2. The four petitioners were appointed on the dates indicated against their names as under:- Name Date of appointment (1) Smt. Gulab 4.8.1981 (2) Chhagan Lal 6.7.1982 (3) Laxman Ram 17.5.1983 (4) Rati Ram 10.4.1987 3. All these four employees were appointed in the Medical and Health Department under C.M. and H.O., Alwar on daily wages which were increased from time to time from Rs. 7/- per day to Rs. 14/- per day and at the time of the filing the writ petition, the petitioners were receiving Rs. 14/- per day. The petitioners have come with a case that they are being paid for 26 days in a month and 4 days break which is being given is only an artificial break and otherwise the petitioners are continuing right from their date of appointments as given above. A document Annex. 5 dated 15th January, 1990 has been placed on record, which is a letter issued by the Directorate of Medical and Health Services addressed to all C.M. and H.O. and the Medical Officer Incharges of the Government Hospitals in relation to the daily wages employees. In this letter it has been impressed that whereas the ban on the appointments was no more in force, no employees be retained on daily wages and in accordance with the Government order dated 27th of December, 1989 endorsed by the Directorate on 30th December, 1989 and in accordance with the directions as has been referred in this letter dated 15th January, 1990, prompt action be taken to give regular appointments to daily wage earners on priority basis and accordingly regular appointments be given. It has been stated that on behalf of the petitioners a notice for demand of justice was served upon the respondents seeking regularisation of their services and to pay them in accordance with the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. In para 7 of the petition it has also been alleged that 14 posts of Class-IV employees were lying vacant but the services of the petitioners had not yet, been regularised. In para 7 of the petition it has also been alleged that 14 posts of Class-IV employees were lying vacant but the services of the petitioners had not yet, been regularised. After giving the aforesaid notice for demand of justice dated 23rd March, 1990, the present writ petition was filed on 31st March, 1990 On 5th July, 1990 show cause notice was issued by this Court as to why the writ petition may not be admitted/disposed of. After the service was complete the matter came up before the Court on 20th August, 1990 and it was recorded on that date in presence of Shri K.N. Garg, Addl. Govt. Advocate that on 3rd September, 1990 the case will be heard and finally disposed of even if the reply is not filed. On 3rd September, 1990, the case was adjourned to 4th October, 1990 on the request of the counsel for the petitioner and yet the case was again listed before the Court on 6th September, 1990 and, therefore, it was directed that the matter be listed on 4th October, 1990. Thereafter the matter came up before the Court on 10th October, 1990 and on this date the Addl. Govt. Advocate again sought time to file the reply. The time was granted and when the matter again came up before the Court on 17th October, 1990, the time was again sought by the Addl. Govt. Advocate and the matter was posted for 1st November, 1990. On 1st November, 1950 also no reply was filed and the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1990) 1 S.C.C. 361 . The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State sought time to study the matter and make his submissions on 22nd November, 1990. Thereafter the matter came up before the Court on 23rd November, 1990 and on this date the case was wrongly listed in the cause list in the category of 'incomplete service' and on that basis time was again sought and the matter was posted for 13th December, 1990. Today Miss Deepa Ajwani, Asstt. Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent has stated that file has not been located in the Govt. Advocate Office. No reply whatsoever has been filed and the allegations of the petitioners remained uncontroverted. 4. Today Miss Deepa Ajwani, Asstt. Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent has stated that file has not been located in the Govt. Advocate Office. No reply whatsoever has been filed and the allegations of the petitioners remained uncontroverted. 4. Shri Y.C. Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the four petitioners are in continuous service as daily wage earners from 4.8.1981, 6.7.1582, 15.5.1983 and 10.4.1987 respectively under C.M. & H.O., Alwar with the artificial breaks of the gazetted holidays and each one of them is being paid on daily wages basis and have completed more than 3 years of service by now. He has submitted that the documentary evidence in the form of the appointment order Ex.1 to 4 is available on record to show that 4 petitioners had been appointed as Class-IV employees on daily wages and they were required to be given regular appointment on priority basis in terms of Annex.5 and further that the case which was placed for consideration of the Departmental Authorities by way of notice for demand of justice dated 23.3.1990 also could not evoke any reply. His argument is that since the petitioners have been discharging the same or similar duties as are being discharged by other Class-IV employees, they are entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale prescribed for Class-IV employees and the dearness allowance thereon on the principle of 'equal pay tor equal work' and that their services should have been regularised in terms of Annex.5. He has placed reliance on (1990) 1 SCC, 361, Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation. It was a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the daily wage earners to regularise their services in the respective units and to pay them equal wages with initial basic pay, dearness allowance and other admissible allowances at par with regularly appointed employees of the respondents performing the same and similar duties. It was a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the daily wage earners to regularise their services in the respective units and to pay them equal wages with initial basic pay, dearness allowance and other admissible allowances at par with regularly appointed employees of the respondents performing the same and similar duties. In this case the controversy before the Supreme Court was as to whether some petitioners who did not possess the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as to entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them could be confirmed or not but in view of the un-disputable facts that the petitioners before the Supreme Court had been appointed between the period 1983-86 and ever since 1983 they were working and had gained sufficient experience in the actual discharging of the duties attached to the posts held by them, the Supreme Court observed that the practical experience would always add the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability and further that the initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service and once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. So far as the case before me is concerned, I do not find that there is any dispute regarding the educational qualifications of the petitioners for appointment as Class-IV employees and even if it be so, the fact remains that each one of them has completed a period of more than 3 years. The Supreme Court has observed in para 6 of the aforesaid judgment as under:- "In our view, three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the respondent, in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of three years period." 5. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of three years period." 5. Thus the Supreme Court has categorically laid down that 3 years experience ignoring artificial breaks in service for short period/periods is sufficient. I, therefore, hold that the 4 petitioners are entitled to the regularisation of their service as Class-IV employees as they have completed more than 3 years service by now and further that the orders regularising their services as Class-IV employees ought to have been passed by the respondents themselves in view of Annex. 5 dated 15th January, 1990 and in view of the uncontroverted fact that 14 posts of Class-IV employees were lying vacant. Be that as it may. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court now the entitlement of the petitioners for regularisation as Class-IV employees is fully established. 6. So far as the contention of payment of the initial basic pay plus dearness allowance prescribed for Class-IV employees to these four petitioners who are daily wage earners is concerned, their claim is fully supported by the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as admittedly they have been discharging same or similar duties and in the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court has also observed as under:- "All the petitioners are entitled to equal pay at par with the persons appointed on regular basis to the similar post or discharge similar duties, and are entitled to the scale of pay and all allowances revised from time to time for the said posts." 7. The outcome of the aforesaid adjudication is that the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the four petitioners as Class-IV employees and to pay them minimum of the prescribed pay scale for Class-IV employees plus dearness allowance from 31st March, 1950 i.e. the date on which the present writ petition was filed. The respondents would make a faithful and punctual compliance of this order within a period of three months from the date the copy of this order is made available to the concerned authorities. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******