Judgment U. P. Singh, J. 1. This application has been filed by the sole petitioner seeking a direction from this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India for application and benefit of the principle "equal pay for equal work". 2. The petitioner is an employee of the Bihar State Text Book Printing corporation, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation" ). He is a graduate by qualification having passed in the year 1978 from the Magadh university. Thereafter, he obtained a specialised training for the post of mono Operator from the respondent Corporation for three years and having known about the vacancy of Hand Compositor in the Corporation, he applied for the same. He was put to test by the Technical Officer and Works manager and appointed in July,1981, as daily wage worker. Since then he has been working without any breack in the service for more than 240 days and on joining the service he was getting Rs.10/- as daily wage which was subsequently increased to Rs.15/- and Rs.18/- for the year 1984 and finally he was allowed Rs.25/- in the year 1985. As against this, those who are holding the same posts as permanent Hand Compositors are getting monthly salary of Rs 2040/- (approximately ). As already stated, the petitioner is getting Rs, 251- per day without any other service benefits which have been granted to similarly situated employees of the Corporation. 3. It is pointed out that for posts are still vacant but even then the petitioner has been working as a daily wage worker since 14-7-1981 in addition to his work as Mono Operator, he has been performing the work of Mono Key Operator, a superior post for which he had taken training for a period of three years from the respondent Corporation and for which a certificate was granted (Annexure 1 ). The grivance of the petitioner is that even if it is not possible to employ him on permanent basis yet he was fit to be granted equal pay which was being paid to similar employees for carrying the same nature of work. He has, therefore claimed equal pay for equal work since 14-7-1981 and in the alternative he has prayed that he may be made a permanent employee on the post on which he is working. 4. He has, therefore claimed equal pay for equal work since 14-7-1981 and in the alternative he has prayed that he may be made a permanent employee on the post on which he is working. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation the stand taken is that his engagement was purely temporary and he was not eneaced on any sanctioned post in the Corporation. His appointment was also not in accordance with the rules of the Corporation/state Government He does not carry out any fixed resposibility like the regular employees of the Corporation. Therefore, he cannot compare himself as permanent confirmed employee until the appointment is made regular. 5. It has been further stated that the Board of Directors in their meeting held on 30-5-88 and 31-5-1988 have taken a decision that those casual workers who have been working in the Corporation continuously for the last so many years may be regularised but before such regularisation, approval of the human Resources Development Department and Bureau of Public Enter prises, Government of Bihar, may be obtained, Accordingly, they have been requested to accord their approval. In the mean-time, the respondent corporation has decided to work out a proposal for regularisation of the casual workers in the existing vacant posts. In order to examine the eligibility qualification, reserved policy and several other important considerations he corporation has constituted a Committee on 18-1-1990. The Committee in its meeting dated 6-4-1990 decided that an interview should also be conducted m order to examine the suitability of the casual workers for various vacant posts against which their services may be regularised. 6. It is not disputed that since his appointment in the year 1981 the petitioner has been working in the post of Hand Compositor as a daily wage worker. It has been emphatically denied that he was illegally employed the very fact that the petitioner worked for long ten years without any blemish it fully demonstrates that he was eligible and qualified for performing his duty on the post to which he was appointed and he acted with full satisfaction. Non-consideration for regularisation of his services will not establish by itself that he was not eligible. Non-consideration for regularisation of his services will not establish by itself that he was not eligible. Calling for any such interview to test his suitability again in order to regularise his service is uncalled for adopting such method would be most unfair to those who have worked for long years without any break in the post held by them. It is not a cat of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner had no requiste qualification an employee like the petitioner having served for long ten years would be legitimately awaiting for regularisation of his service. It is not stated that the nature of the job which the petitioner performed as Hand Compositor was in any way inferior in nature to those who are performing the same job but on regular salary. Therefore, denying equal pay for the same nature of work is without any justification. Irregularity or illegality in the appointment was not brought to the notice of the petitioner ever before filing of the counter-affidavit in this case. Similar grievances were made by some other petitioners claiming the same relief against the respondent Corporation in another writ application (C. W. J. C. No.1354/89 ). The petitioners were granted the relief on 16-11-1989 and the writ application was allowed with a direction to absorb them. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner against any such vacancy which may arise in near future or which may be in existence because the petitioner contends that there are still four vacant posts. The petitioner shall be paid equal pay in the minimum scale on regular basis which is being paid to those performing the same duty as Hand Compositor on regular basis. 7. This application is, accordingly, allowed with the directions indications indicated above. Application allowed