JUDGMENT 1. - As per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, the petitioner was employed as a Junior Engineer on work-charge basis from August, 1988 to November, 1989 on the wages of Rs. 20/- per day, and from December, 1988 to February, 1989, on the wages of Rs. 40/- per day. He was performing the duties and functions of Junior Engineer like other regularly appointed Junior Engineers. The services of the petitioner were discontinued from February, 1989 without assigning any reason. The petitioner made representation but with no result. Hence, he has filed the present writ petition on 29.3.1989. 2. Notice were issued on 4.4.1989 as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. The rule was made returnable within four weeks. A reply of the writ petition was filed or. behalf of the non petitioners on 5.7.1989, to which a rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner on 5.1.1990. The State Government has further filed reply to the rejoinder on 16th May, 1990. Arguments have been heard. 3. The State Government in its reply has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Surveyor on work-charge basis to make the survey of Beawar-Bheem Road on National Highway-8, for a period of three months, at the rate of Rs. 25/- per day. The said period was extended for one month; after the completion of the said work, the petitioner was engaged on daily wages as Supervisor to supervise the Beawar work from 1.12.1988 till February, 1989, at the rate of Rs. 40/- per day, on work- charge basis. The petitioner was engaged purely as a casual labourer in the capacity of Diploma Engineer which in normal language is called as Junior Engineer. The norms for regular appointment of Junior Engineer are totally different. The petitioner was never appointed as a regular Junior Engineer. The petitioner worked as a Surveyor on casual work and again as a Supervisor for special casual work which cannot be equated with the work of regularly appointed Junior Engineer. The norms for regular appointment of Junior Engineer are totally different. The petitioner was never appointed as a regular Junior Engineer. The petitioner worked as a Surveyor on casual work and again as a Supervisor for special casual work which cannot be equated with the work of regularly appointed Junior Engineer. Since the petitioner was engaged purely as a casual worker on daily wage basis for casual works, on temporary basis and his services were dispensed with after the completion of the casual work for which he was engaged, therefore, there was no reason to assign any reason for the same.The non petitioners have also submitted a copy of the affidavit filed by the petitioner wherein he has stated as under : "I Satish Chandra Yogi S/o Shri Dhanpal Yogi, Resident of Beawar do hereby take oath and state as under : 1. I have been engaged temporarily on the work of 'Renewal by MSS with paver finisher from the 49/C to 58/c Beawar Bye Pass. 2. I can be removed at any time or after the completion of the work. 3. I will not claim any retrenchment benefits, work charged benefits, seniority claim, or any other benefits in any case." In rejoinder, the petitioner has submitted that he was employed firstly from August,1988 to November, 1988, secondly from December, 1988 to February, 1989 and thirdly April, 1989 to 11th May, 1989 although three posts of Junior Engineers/Sub Engineers are lying vacant in the sub-division under the Executive Engineer (NHW), Beawar. 4. He has further asserted that the work is still continuing regarding the strengthening of Beawar-Bheem Road. He has explained that the affidavit (Anx. R-3) was submitted by the petitioner at the instance of the Assistant Engineer because the petitioner was in dire need of employment. 5. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit along with his rejoinder stating that after the filling of the writ petition, he had been taken on work from April,1989 and was being paid at the rate of Rs. 45/- per day till 11.5.1989 and when the notice of the writ petition was received by the Executive Engineer, he was again removed from service. 6. 45/- per day till 11.5.1989 and when the notice of the writ petition was received by the Executive Engineer, he was again removed from service. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice a judgment of Supreme Court in Olga Tellis and others V. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others ( AIR 1986 SC 180 ) wherein the theory of right to live has been expounded. He further argued that the petitioner is entitled to the same wages as that of a regular Junior Engineer and has placed reliance on Bhagwan Dass and others v. State of Haryana and others, ( AIR 1987 SC 2049 ) wherein the theory of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' has been enunciated. Persons doing similar work are entitled to similar pay and equal pay cannot be denied on the ground that the mode of recruitment was different or that the person was appointed on temporary basis, on a temporary scheme, if the nature of the duties and the functions discharged and the work done is similar. He has also brought to my notice Dhirendra Chamoli and another v. State of U.P., (1986)1 SCC 637 wherein it has been observed that it is not open to the Government to deny benefit of equal pay for equal work to casual workers on ground of their acceptance of employment with full knowledge of their disadvantage and such denial would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that there is a clear violation of Section 25-G 25-El of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947'). Even persons junior to the petitioner have been retained in service, where as service of the petitioner has been dispensed with. Section 25-G of the Act of 1947 enjoins upon an employer to retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman. In the present case, no reasons have been assigned, whatsoever, for dispensing with the service of the petitioner. Similarly, persons who were retrenched like the petitioner, have again been employed in preference to the petitioner. 8. In the present case, no reasons have been assigned, whatsoever, for dispensing with the service of the petitioner. Similarly, persons who were retrenched like the petitioner, have again been employed in preference to the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a division bench decision of this court in Ramu Ram v. Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. & Ors., ( 1989(1) R.L.R. 1 ) wherein it has been held that right to live includes right to employment for the purpose of fighting with starvation or semi starvation. It has further been held in that case that a person appointed on daily wages is equally a civil servant and should not be thrown out of employment without any reason, particularly when Article 21 can be applied. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have considered the material on record as also the authorities cited at the bar. 10. It is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner was appointed as a Surveyor on work-charge basis, to make survey of Beawar-Bheem Road, for a period of three months, which term was extended by another month. The petitioner was again engaged on daily wage basis as a Supervisor, for the Beawar work from 1.12.1988 till February, 1989 at the rate of Rs.40/- per day, on work-charge basis. According to the respondents, the petitioner was engaged purely as a casual labourer in the capacity of Diploma Engineer, which in normal language is called as Junior Engineer. The petitioner had never been appointed as a regular Junior Engineer. He was only working as a Supervisor or the Surveyor for a special casual work. In rejoinder, the petitioner has submitted that he was employed firstly from August, 1988 to Nov. 1988; again from December, 1988 to February, 1989 and again from April, 1989 to 11th May, 1989, and at that time, three posts of Junior Engineers (Sub Engineers) were lying v.cant in the sub-division under the Executive Engineer, N.H.W. Beawar. It has further been asserted that the work is still continuing on Beawar-Bheem Road. Even after the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was taken back in service on April, 1989 but as soon as the notice of the writ petition were served, his service were dispensed with from 11.5.1989 and thereafter, he has not been given any employment so far. Even after the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was taken back in service on April, 1989 but as soon as the notice of the writ petition were served, his service were dispensed with from 11.5.1989 and thereafter, he has not been given any employment so far. It is really very unfortunate that inspite of Article 41 of the Constitution of India, which enjoins upon -the State to make effective provision for securing right to work given in Part-IV of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the Govt. has not been able to provide facilities and opportunities to give employment to all the citizens. Ours is a welfare State and therefore, it is all the more essential for the Government to create employment for the citizens and at least to keep employed qualified persons who are useful to the State as well as to the Society. The petitioner is a well qualified persons and had been employed in the Public Works Department. As we know, Public Works Deptt. has got a number of works going on. If one work is over, another work is started, and if that work is also over, some other work is started somewhere and therefore, as and when one work is over, the persons who are working during that work should be provided employment when the second work starts. Even when the petitioner's services were dispensed with in February, 1989, he was again given employment in April, 1989 but they were again dispensed with on 11.5.1989 and according to the petitioner, it was done only because he had come to this Court and filed a writ petition challenging his earlier removal in February, 1989. This is most unfortunate. Every citizen has a right to approach the courts of law to vindicate his rights and seek justice. Merely because a person has approached the court of law, his services should not have been dispensed with. This fact has come on record by way of additional affidavit and no counter has been filed on behalf of the State Government as to under what circumstances the service of the petitioner were dispensed with on 115.1989. The allegation of the petitioner have not been denied. 11. There has been no denial of the fact that the three posts of Junior Engineers/Sub Engineers are lying vacant. The allegation of the petitioner have not been denied. 11. There has been no denial of the fact that the three posts of Junior Engineers/Sub Engineers are lying vacant. It has not been shown by the respondents that any body else has been appointed in place of the petitioner or that the posts have been abolished. The respondents are relying on the undertaking which is said to have been given by the petitioner, containing an assertion that he could be removed at any time or after the completion of the work and that he will not claim any retrenchment benefit, work-charge benefit, seniority etc. In a country where public employment is scarce and can be secured after stiff competition and where large mass of the population gets livelihood by employment, at times, the employees agree to serve with extraordinarily onerous conditions and they are forced to accept whatever conditions are imposed by the employer. The doctrine of Laissez faire may possibly be invoked by private employers in western countries, but this cannot be allowed to be invoked even by private employers in this country where the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and other industrial legislation's have been made by the Parliament and the State legislatures for protecting the interests of the workers' class. So far as public employment is concerned, it is hardly open for it to invoke such doctrine. The State is not free to impose wholly arbitrary and unconscionable terms of contract on the employees. This approach of the State was categorically negatived by the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojonath Ganguly, ( AIR 1986 SC 1571 ) . 12. Thus, in my view, there is no justification, whatsoever, for termination of the services of the petitioner and/or non continuance of his employment. 13. The result of the above discussion is that the writ petition succeeds in part. It is hereby declared that the termination of the service of the petitioner from 115.1989 is clearly illegal and is quashed. He will be deemed to be in service. So far as relief of wages is concerned, keeping in mind that the petitioner has not worked, it is directed that the petitioner shall be paid 50% of the wages at the rate of Rs.40/- per day from 11.5.1989 as is being paid to a work charge worker. He will be deemed to be in service. So far as relief of wages is concerned, keeping in mind that the petitioner has not worked, it is directed that the petitioner shall be paid 50% of the wages at the rate of Rs.40/- per day from 11.5.1989 as is being paid to a work charge worker. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petition Allowed In Part. *******