JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed with a prayer that a direction be given to respondents to provide regular pay scale of packer/class IV to the petitioner who is working from May, 1, 1963 on daily wages basis. It has also been prayed that the regular salary may be given to him with effect from his date of appointment. 2. Briefly, the petitioner was appointed on post of packer by verbal orders on May 1, 1963. However, it is pointed out by learned Additional Government Advocate that he was appointed with effect from 18.6.1963. It is submitted that even though he works from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. and performs all duties as performed by regular employees. He was never paid minimum pay scale of the post of packer, even prior to enforcement of the Rajasthan Government Presses Subordinate Service Rules, 1973 (for brevity 'the Rules, 1973') . In the rules 1973 the post of packer has been encadred, but the salary scale is same as that of Class-IV. 3. It is submitted by Shri Shah, learned counsel that services of the petitioner were verbally terminated, on account of which, he filed DBCWP No. 2079/88, which was decided vide order dated December 13, 1988. The petitioner, by this order was reinstated with full back wages. In this petition also a prayer had been made for regularising the services of the petitioner. However, it was directed by this court that he should first approach the appropriate authorities and then approach this Court, if necessary. It is, therefore, contended that petitioner, who has been working since May 1, 1963 on daily wages basis should be given regular salary of Class-IV servant, which has been denied to him till date. At present he is paid Rs. 22/- per day for 26 days in a month. 4. It is submitted by Shri B.K. Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate that petitioner concealed the fact of filing the application under Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity the Act') in Labour Court where also prayer for 'equal wages for equal work' was made. It is only when the reply was filed that this application has been withdrawn. It is submitted by Shri Shah, learned counsel that petitioner filed this application on wrong legal advise. It is only when the reply was filed that this application has been withdrawn. It is submitted by Shri Shah, learned counsel that petitioner filed this application on wrong legal advise. When the matter was handled by him, he advised the petitioner to withdraw the same as the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to award the relief on the basis of doctrine of 'equal wages for equal work'. 5. I have heard both the parties and gone through the documents on record. To say the least, the practice of denying persons of daily wages basis for such a long time is highly despicable. It is only desirable that an employee should get his due wages as laid down by law for the work he performs. Scores of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court have been handed down regarding applicability of doctrine of 'equal wages for equal work' in such circumstances. It is, therefore, directed that petitioner is entitled to get the minimum pay scale in the scale of Class IV, which is applicable to packers also. 6. So far as the matter of regularising is concerned, it was pointed by learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioner admittedly does not possess the minimum qualification of having passed 8th Standard as required in the qualifications for the post of packer as mentioned in the Schedule of the Rules, 1973. There is no doubt that when an appointment is initially made the possession of required qualifications is essential. However, when an appointment has already been made and petitioner has continued on the post of packer since 1963 the experience gained by him during this long period of 20 years will be an important consideration regarding confirmation of the petitioner on the post of packer which in pay-scale is equivalent to that of a Class IV. Once the daily rated workers are allowed to work for such length of time, it will be a very hard not to confirm such persons merely on the ground that he does not possess the minimum educational qualification of having passed 8th Standard. Once the daily rated workers are allowed to work for such length of time, it will be a very hard not to confirm such persons merely on the ground that he does not possess the minimum educational qualification of having passed 8th Standard. In Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 371 , in a similar matter, it was held by the Apex Court that "once the appointments of petitioners 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. It can be said that three years experience ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the management in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation."In the matter referred to above, the confirmation was directed by the Apex Court since the petitioners had worked on daily wages for a period of three years whereas the petitioner was working for the last 20 years on the same post. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to get minimum in the regular pay-scale of packer/Class IV from (1) AIR 1990 SC 371 . December 13, 1988 the date on which this Court in the earlier DBCWP No. 2079/88 filed by the petitioner, passed order of reinstating him. So far as the confirmation is concerned, it will be allowed to confirm the petitioner from July 25, 1989, the date on which the present petition was filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given out that the petitioner may be confirmed either as packer or as Class IV, since it makes no material difference, so far as the emoluments and the work performed by the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, it is directed that petitioner shall be confirmed either as packer or Class IV within a period of 2 months from today. It is further directed that the arrears be paid to the petitioner within a period of 4 months. 8. The writ petition is allowed as above, with no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******