JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Notice was issued by this court on 20th September, 1989 to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Notices were served on all respondents in the year 1989 itself and thereafter, time has been given to the respondents to file reply, on different occasions. On 14.11.1991 the court accepted the application filed on behalf of the petitioner and ordered that the case will be heard at the stage of orders on 5.12.1991. Although, a period of more than 2 years has passed since the date of issuance of notice by this court, reply to the writ petition has not been filed. Learned Deputy Government Advocate today again requested for time to file reply. In my opinion, there is no justification for grant of further time to file reply. This is so because the petitioner's claim lies in very narrow compass. He has only prayed for grant of benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee in Government Middle School, Chapradi, Amer, district Jaipur by order dated 20.4.81. Petitioner was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 150/- being a member of Antyoday Yojana and he was described as a person appointed on part time basis. The term of appointment of the petitioner was extended up to 7.1.81. After expiry of initial term of appointment, the District Education Officer, Jaipur passed another order dated 7.7.91 and directed that the term of appointment of the petitioner is extended till further orders. Petitioner's case is that for last over a decade by now he has been serving the Education Department as Class IV employee and has been discharging the duties as are being discharged by other Class IV employees who are getting salary in the regular pay scale. The petitioner is still being paid salary in the form of consolidated pay. Petitioner has referred to the decisions of this court, wherein directions have been given to the employees to make payment of salary in the regular time-scale meant for Class IV employees. Petitioner's case is that notwithstanding the fact that he is discharging the duties similar to those being discharged by other class IY employees who are getting salary in the. regular pay scale. Petitioner's case is that notwithstanding the fact that he is discharging the duties similar to those being discharged by other class IY employees who are getting salary in the. regular pay scale. This, according to the petitioner, amounts to an act of hostile discrimination against him and denial of equal protection of law and equality before law. Learned Deputy Government Advocate after seeking instructions from the Officer-in-charge Shri K.D. Goyal stated in the court that the petitioner is still serving the Education Department and is being paid consolidated salary. He is not being paid wages in regular time-scale because of non- (availability of vacant post. 3. In the absence of specific counter, filed by the respondents, the statement of the petitioner that he is discharging the duties which are identical in nature and quantum to the duties being discharged by any other Class IV employee serving the Education Department will have to be treated as correct and it must be held that the petitioner's work is same as that of other Class IV employees forking in the Education Department. Almost a decade ago the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India ( AIR 1982 S.C. 879 ) declared that the principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution should be read as part of the concept of equality contained in Article 14 and 16. Hundreds of decisions have been rendered by various High Courts and dozens by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, wherein the law declared in Randheer Singh's case has been reiterated and re-affirmed. The last in the series is the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhar War District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 396 .. 4. In my considered opinion, there is no justification whatsoever for engaging employees on daily wage basis, if the work is of continuous nature and the plea of nonavailability of post, absence of administrative sanction etc. cannot be a justification for making payment on daily wage basis and to continue them for years together. The State must devise a policy, whereby the employees are appointed only in regular time scale. Only in cases of emergent needs and contingencies, fixed term employment or contract of employment can be entered into. cannot be a justification for making payment on daily wage basis and to continue them for years together. The State must devise a policy, whereby the employees are appointed only in regular time scale. Only in cases of emergent needs and contingencies, fixed term employment or contract of employment can be entered into. The plea that by appointing persons on daily wage basis something is offered to those who do not get job else where, cannot be accepted by the court in the face of the provisions contained in Articles 14,16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. 5. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. It is declared that the action of the respondents in keeping the petitioner on consolidated salary for a decade is wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional. Respondents are directed to give the petitioner regular pay scale of Class IV employees by fixing his salary at the minimum} of the pay scale w.e.f. 10.7.1989 i.e. the date on which the writ petition was filed. Although, the petitioner has not made any specific prayer for regularisation of bis service, but nevertheless, the facts which have come on record unmistakably prove that he has served the department for a decade by now and the court will not allow} perpetuation of injustice any more. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate order for regularisation of the petitioner's service within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After regularisation, the petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits as are applicable to the regular Class IV employees in the State of Rajasthan. 1 am also of the view that it is a fit case where the respondents should pay costs to the petitioner.Accordingly, cost of Rs. 1000/- is awarded against the respondents.Writ Petition Allowed. *******