JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Babu Lal Sain has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming relief for payment of salary in the regular pay scale of Peon (Chowkidar) in the service of University of Rajasthan. The petitioner has stated in his writ petition that he was appointed as Chowkidar on consolidated salary of Rs. 350/- for four months w.e.f. 1.8.1984 in the Department of Philosophy, University of Rajasthan under the Special Assistance Programme of University Grants Commission. This appointment was preceded by a selection made by a 3 Member Committee on 20.7.1984. He joined service on 1.8.1984. Thereafter, he was appointed as Peon (Chowkidar) against an existing permanent vacancy in the Department of Philosophy and sanction for his appointment was given by the University of Rajasthan vide letter No. Estt./11/85/6169 dated 19.4.1985 issued by the office of the Registrar, University of Rajasthan to the Head of the Philosophy Department, University of Rajasthan and also from another letter dated 17.5.1985 issued by the office of the Registrar, University of Rajasthan to the Head of the Philosophy Department, University of Rajasthan. The petitioner has referred to the letter dated November 21, 1985 of the Head of the Department of Philosophy, University of Rajasthan which he wrote to the Dy. Registrar (NT), University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and this letter shows that the petitioner has been working as Peon (Chowkidar) against the exisitng vacancy on a consolidated salary of Rs. 350/-. This is also borne-out from another letter of the Head of the Dapartment dated 13.10.1988 addressed to the Assistant Registrar (Estt. ll), University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. In that letter, the Head of the Department has stressed the fact that the petitioner is working as full time employee against a full time post of Peon. The Head of the Department recommended that regular pay scale be allowed to the petitioner as per the rules of the University. Annex.15 dated 1.10.1985 and Annex.16 dated 7.10.1985 show that the petitioner has been treated as daily wage employees the service of University of Rajasthan. Annex.18 dated November 6, 1985 also shows that the petitioner was given appointment on daily wage basis. To the same effect is document dated 20th Nov. 1985. Annex.19 in which some objections had been raised regarding appointment of the petitioner on daily wage basis . Annex.18 dated November 6, 1985 also shows that the petitioner was given appointment on daily wage basis. To the same effect is document dated 20th Nov. 1985. Annex.19 in which some objections had been raised regarding appointment of the petitioner on daily wage basis . By the letter dated 16.12.1985 issued by the office of the Registrar to the Head, Department of Philosophy, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby the action of the Head of the Department of engaging the petitioner on daily wage basis for a period of 8 days was confirmed. The Head of the Department had written to the University of Rajasthan on 20th June, 1990 Annex.24 for settlement of the claim of the petitioner which he made vide re- presentation dated 19.6.1990. In letter dated 25th Aug. 1990 the Head, Department of Philosophy, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur has again recommended to the Registrar of the University of Rajasthan to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Class IV employees working in the University. The name of the petitioner has in fact been included in the tentative seniority list of daily wage employees which has been circulated by the University of Rajasthan vide office order dated 22.2.1991 issued under the signatures of Addl. Registrar. The name of the petitioner has been shown at serial No.4 in this seniority list and he has been shown to be in employment since 1.8.1985 in the Department of Philosophy. 2. On the basis of these documents, the petitioner has asserted that he has been continuously discharging the duties of a Peon (Chowkidar) on full time basis. He has been appointed against a clear vacant post and he has been dis- charging the same duties as are being discharged by other employees performing the duties of Peon (Chowkidar). The petitioner has claimed that on the principle of equal pay for equal work he is entitled to grant of salary in the pay scale of Peon (Class IV) employee w.e.f. 1.8.1984 or in any case w.e.f. 1.4.1985. The petitioner has asserted that the action of respondents University and its functionaries has resulted in violation of his fundamental rights contained in articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner has asserted that the action of respondents University and its functionaries has resulted in violation of his fundamental rights contained in articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. In their reply, the respondents No. 1 and 3 have stated that the main object of the University is to provide instructions in such branches of learning as the University may think fit and to make provision for research and for advancement and dissemination of knowledge. For various research projects, the University prepares plans as per requirement of the Central/State Government or University Grants Commission. The UGC gave a special project to the Department of Philosophy. The employees who are engaged under such programmes by the Head of the Department who is treated as Director, they are generally not paid from the budgetary provisions of the University and such employees cannot be deemed to be employees of the University. For regular employment of Class IV and Clerical staff the appointing authority is the Registrar of the University. In case of the petitioner, appointment was never made by the Registrar of the University. The Head of the Department of Philosophy, University of Rajasthan had shown his inclination to keep the petitioner under the programme and the University allowed him to continue the services of the petitioner on fixed salary; The respondents No.1 and 3 asserted that the petitioner never performed any such job which is generally performed by regular Peon and Class IV employees of the University and therefore, the provisions of equal pay for equal work cannot be attracted. The respondents No. 1 and 3 have stated that the correspondence exchanged between the Head of the Department and office of the Registrar of the University is not relevant for the purpose of the claim of the petitioner regarding grant of salary in regular pay scale. 4. The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is employed under the University of Rajasthan or not. Annex. 7 dated 19-4-1985 is a letter written by the office of the Registrar, University of Rajasthan to the Head, Department of Philosophy whereby permission was given to Head of the Philosophy Department to employ the petitioner on fixed salary of Rs. 350/-. The sanction of the University was also conveyed to Head of Philosophy Department vide Annex. 8 dated 17-5-1985. Annex. 15 dated 1-10-1985, Annex. 350/-. The sanction of the University was also conveyed to Head of Philosophy Department vide Annex. 8 dated 17-5-1985. Annex. 15 dated 1-10-1985, Annex. 16 dated 7-10-1985 and Annex. 22 dated 16-12-1985 are all documents issued by the office of the Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. These documents unmistakably show that the petitioner has been treated as employee of the Department of Philosophy, University of Rajasthan. In the seniority-list issued on 22-1-1991, names of persons who are employed on daily wage basis or who are part time and who are paid from the University fund or local fund have been included. The petitioner has been shown to be an employee engaged in Department of Philosophy who is paid fixed salary from University fund. In the face of all these documents, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 3 Sh. R.K. Kala that the petitioner is not employed under the University cannot be accepted. All these documents unmistakably show that the petitioner has been treated an employee of the University of Rajasthan who is being paid salary in the form of fixed amount. The action of the Head of the Department in employing the petitioner has been confirmed by the University from time to time and even sanction was conveyed vide letter dated 17.5.1985 for employment of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.1985. It must therefore be held that the petitioner is an employee of the University of Rajasthan who is working as a Peon (Chowkidar) on a consolidated salary. Even if he is treated as daily wage employee, the factum of relationship between the petitioner and the University of Rajasthan being that of master and servant is established. 5. The second question which requires consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to salary in the regular pay scale of Peon (Chowkidar). The petitioner has asserted that he is a full time employee and is working as Peon (Chowkidar). The various letters of the Head of the Philosophy Department, to which reference has been made here in above clearly show that the petitioner is working as Class IV employee in the capacity of Peon (Chowkidar). In the seniority list issued by the University, he has been shown to be working on a consolidated salary. The petitioner has asserted that he has been discharing the duties of Peon (Chowkidar) on full time basis. In the seniority list issued by the University, he has been shown to be working on a consolidated salary. The petitioner has asserted that he has been discharing the duties of Peon (Chowkidar) on full time basis. He even operated the photo state machine because he possesses qualification for that purpose. Although, the respondents have stated that the petitioner was never given any such job which is generally performed by regular Peon in Class IV of the University and therefore, the provisions of equal pay for equal work cannot be attracted the respondents have not shown as to what duties are actually being performed by the petitioner and how his duties are different than those performed by other Peons or class-IV employees or Chowkidar employed in the University of Rajasthan. The Head of Philosophy Department is a person in whom the petitioner has been working for the last more than 5 years and the various letters of the Head of Philosophy Department show that the petitioner is employed as Chowkidar/Peon against a clear permanent vacant post. He is a full time employee. 6. The respondents are the best persons who could produce material in support of the assertion that the petitioner has not been discharging duties which are similar to the duties of a Peon or Class IV. A bald assertion on the part of the respondents, who are in possession of the entire material relating to service record of the petitioner, is of no avail. In the light of the material which has been placed on record, it must be held that the petitioner is performing the duties of a Peon/Chowkidar in Class IV employee. 7. The concept of equal pay for equal work which finds reference in article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India has been treated as a part of the concept of equality enshrined in articles 14 and 16. 8. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 , Chinnappa Reddy, J speaking for the court observed: "It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39 (d) of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39 (d) of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been pointed-out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental -rights as a matter of interpretation.. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality, before-the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article' 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber- barons and smuggler kins or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the take-over of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. The Preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word 'Socialist' must mean something. Even if it does not mean 'to each according to his need', it must at-least mean 'equal pay for equal work'. The Preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word 'Socialist' must mean something. Even if it does not mean 'to each according to his need', it must at-least mean 'equal pay for equal work'. 'The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is expressly recognised by all socialist systems of law, e.g., Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, para 2 of Section 111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code. Indeed this principle has been incorporated in several Western Labour Codes too. Under provisions in section 31 (g.No.2d) of Book I of the French Code du Travail, and according to Argentinian law, this principle must be applied to female workers in all collective bargaining agreements. In accordance with Section 3 of the Grundgestz of the German Federal Republic, and Clause 7, Section 123 of the Maxican Constitution,the principle is given universal significance" (vide International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy, p.265). The Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognises the principle of 'equal remuneration for work of equal value' as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions "involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as' to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled". Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d) we are of the view that the principle 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer." 9. In Dhirendra Chamoli and Others v. State of U.P, 1986(1) SCC Page 637 , and Surinder Singh v. Engineer-In-Chief, C.P.W.D, 1986(1) SCC Page 639 , their Lordships of Supreme Court held that persons employed as Casual Labour workers or daily wage earners are entitled to be paid salary in the regular pay scale once it is found that they are performing the same duties as are performed by regular Class IV employees. 10. In Daily Rated Casual Labour, P and T Deptt. 10. In Daily Rated Casual Labour, P and T Deptt. v. Union of India, AIR 1987 Supreme Court Page 2342 , their Lordships of Supreme Court held that even though the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in article 38 (2) may not be enforceable as such by virtue of article 37 of the Constitution of India, it may be relied upon by the petitioners to show that they have been subjected to hostile discrimination. The Court further held that denial of salary in regular pay scale to the daily rated employee amounts to exploitation of labour. The Court further held that the Government cannot take advantage of its dominant position and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starving wages. The Court rejected the classification of employees into regularly recruited employees and casual employees for the purpose of paying less than the minimum pay payable to employees in the corresponding regular cadres. 11. Some of the observations made in paragraph 8 of that decisions are very instructive and therefore, I consider it appropriate to reproduce: "India is a socialist republic. It implies the existence of certain important obligations which the State has to discharge. The right to work, the right to free choice of employment, the right to just and favourable conditions of work, the right to protection against unemployment, the right of every one who works to just and favourable remuneration ensuring a decent living for himself and for family, the right of every one without discrimination of any kind to equal pay for equal work, the right to rest, leisure, reasonable limitation on working hours and periodic holidays with pay, the right to form .trade unions and the right to join trade unions of one's choice and the right to security of work are some of the rights which have to be ensured by appropriate legislative and executive measures. It is true that all these rights cannot be extended simultaneously. But they do indicate the socialist goal. The decree of achievement in this direction depends upon the economic resources, willingness of the people to produce and more than all the existence of industrial peace throughout the Country. Of those rights the question of security of work is of utmost importance. But they do indicate the socialist goal. The decree of achievement in this direction depends upon the economic resources, willingness of the people to produce and more than all the existence of industrial peace throughout the Country. Of those rights the question of security of work is of utmost importance. If a person does not have the feeling that he belongs to an organisation engaged in production he will not put forward his best effort to produce more. That sense of belonging arises only when he feels that he will not be turned out of employment the next day at the whim of the management. It is for this reason it is being repeatedly observed by those who are in charge of economic affairs of the countries in different parts of the world that as far as possible security of work should be assured to the employees so that they may contribute to the maximization of production. It is again for this reason that managements and the Governmental agencies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for an unreasonably long period of time. Where is any justification to keep persons as casual labourers for years as is being done in the Postal and Telegraphs Department ? Is it for paying the lower wages ? Then it amounts to ex-potation of labour. Is it because you do not know that there is enough work for the workers ? It cannot be so because there is so much of development to be carried out in the communications department that you need more workers. The employees belonging to skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled classes can be shifted from one department to another even if there is no work to be done in a given place. Administrators should realise that if any worker remains idle on any day, the country loses the wealth that he would have produced during that day. Our wage structure is such that a worker is always paid less than what he produces. So why allow people to remain idle ? Anyway they have got to be fed and clothed. Therefore, why don't we provide them with work ? There are several types of works such as road making, railway construction, house building, irrigation projects, communications etc. which have to be undertaken on a large scale. So why allow people to remain idle ? Anyway they have got to be fed and clothed. Therefore, why don't we provide them with work ? There are several types of works such as road making, railway construction, house building, irrigation projects, communications etc. which have to be undertaken on a large scale. Development in these types of activities (even though they do not involve much foreign exchanges) is not keeping pace with the needs of society. We are saying all this only to make the people understand the need for better management of man power (which is a decaying asset) the non-utilisation of which leads to the inevitable loss of valuable human resources. Let us remember the slogn. "Produce or Perish." It is not an empty slogn. We fail to produce more at our own peril. It is against this background that we say that non-regularisation of temporary employees or casual labour for a long period is not a wise policy. We, therefore, direct the respondents to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the casual labourers who have been continuously working for more than one year in the Post and Telegraphs Department." 12. In Jaipal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC Page 1504 , the Supreme Court rejected the plea of the State that different mode of recruitment of teachers will justify grant of different pay scales or different amount of salary to the teachers although they may be performing similar functions. The Court held that appointment after selection by Subordinate Service Selection Board is hardly relevant for the purposes of application of doctrine of equal pay for equal work and the difference of mode of selection will not affect the application of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work if both the classes of persons performing similar functions and duties under the same employer. 13. A similar plea had earlier been raised in Bhagwandass v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC Page No. 2409 , and the same was rejected. More or less, the same principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Sahai v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1215 , and large number of other decisions. 14. 13. A similar plea had earlier been raised in Bhagwandass v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC Page No. 2409 , and the same was rejected. More or less, the same principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Sahai v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1215 , and large number of other decisions. 14. In the light of the above referred principles, it must be held that an employee is entitled to be paid salary in regular pay scale prescribed for employees in the regular cadre if it is found that the duties performed by employees are similar. The nomenclature of the employee, his designation or the source of recruitment /mode of selection are not relevant considerations for the purpose of application of the concept of equality which inheris in itself the principle of equal pay for equal work. 15. The learned counsel foo the respondents has placed reliance on S.P. Spe. Teachers v. State of A.P., 57 F.L.R. 360 , S.C.E.W. Assocn. Etc. v. Union of India and Another, 1989 V-2 L.L.J. 506 , Umesh Chandra Gupta and Others v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Others, 1989(1) LLJ 74 , and Santosh Kumar v. State of Orissa, 1990 Lab. I.C. 1607 . 16. I have carefully gone through these decisions. In the first case, their Lordships of Supreme Court found that the nature of job of the Special Scheme Teachers was not the same as those of regular school teachers. In the special circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court held that it did not consider it to be a fit case to invoke the principle of equal pay for equal work. In the second case, the Supreme Court held that if the classification is proper and reasonable and has a nexus to the objects sought to be achieved, the dectrine of equal pay for equal work will not have any application even though the persons doing the same work are not getting the same pay. In Umesh Chandra Gupta's case, their Lordship of Supreme Court rejected the plea of equal pay for equal work on the ground that if there is a qualitative difference in the performance of work, the management is entitled to classify the posts and fix different scales of pay. Evaluation of work is the exclusive function of the management and not of courts. Evaluation of work is the exclusive function of the management and not of courts. In Santosh Kumar's case, the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court held that where salaried amins were recruited with higher qualification and their nature of duty entirely differ from regular amins they cannot be fixed at par with regular amins. The Division Bench held nature of duties and qualification are relevant factors for application of the principle of equal pay for equal work. In my opinion, none of these cases referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents have any bearing to the facts of the case in hand. 17. The result of the above discussions is that this writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to be paid salary in the regular pay scale of Class IV employees serving in the University by being fixed at the minimum scale. The respondents are directed to accord this benefit to the petitioner w.e.f. 23.3.1989, the date on which this writ petition was filed in the Court. The petitioner will be entitled to consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to give arrears to the petitioner within three months of the date of presentation of copy of this order.Parties are left to bear their own costs. *******