JUDGMENT 1. 1. Both these writ petitions involve similar facts and similar prayers have been made by the petitioners. Therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioners were employed in the Government service on daily wages with effect from June, 85 and on 19.4.86 respectively. Both of them were posted under Medical Officer, Village Health Training Centre, Naila District, Jaipur. Services of both the petitioners were terminated without compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners challenged the termination of their services and a settlement was arrived at between the petitioners and the Administrative Officer, SMS Medical College. The employer decided to take the petitioners back in service and to give benefit of continuity of service. It was also agreed that the employees will not get salary for the period between the date of termination and the date of settlement. The petitioners were thereafter again posted under respondent No. 3 by order dated 18.9.87 of the Principal, SMS Medical College and Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals. The petitioners thereafter continued to work in the service of the respondents. The petitioners have stated that they are performing 8 hours duties every day and their work is similar to the work being performed by other employees who are being paid salary in the regular pay scale. However, they are being paid daily wages only. Thus they have been subjected to discriminatory treatment and their fundamental right of equality has been infringed. They have claimed that on the basis of the principles of equal pay for equal work, the petitioners are entitled to be paid salary in the regular pay scales of Class IV employees. 3. No reply to the writ petition has been filed. Therefore the facts stated in the writ petition have remained uncontroverted. 4. The principle of `Equal pay for equal work' which is incorporated in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India has been held to be a part of the equality clause contained in the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the facts stated in the writ petition have remained uncontroverted. 4. The principle of `Equal pay for equal work' which is incorporated in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India has been held to be a part of the equality clause contained in the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India 1982(1) SCC 618 , Surendra Singh v. Chief Engineer, CPWD 1986(1) SCC 639 , Dhirendra Chamoly v. State of UP 1986(1), SCC 637 , R.D. Gupta v. Union Governor, Delhi Administration 1987(4) SCC 505 , Bhagwandas v. State of Haryana 1987(4) SCC 634 , Daily rated casual labour employed under P& Department v. UGI 1988(1) SCC 122 , Jaipal v. State of Haryana 1988(3) SCC 354 and Dharwar District PWD literate daily wage employees Association v. State of Karnataka 1990(2) SCC 396 their lordships of the Supreme Court have emphatically laid down and reiterated the principle that all persons doing similar work are entitled to be paid similar wages. Denial of the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work amounts to violation of the constitutional right of equality and equal protection of laws. The court has held that the duties need not be exactly identical but should be broadly similar for the purpose of entitlement to the benefit of principal of equal pay for equal work. 5. This Court has also given direction for enforcement of the principles of equal pay for equal work in large number of cases. Directions have also issued for regularisation of the services of Class IV employees who have served for 3 years. Even the Government has issued circulars for giving preferential treatment to daily wage earners or part time employees in the matter of regular appointment as Class IV employees. 6. In this case the petitioner has been serving as daily wage for last more than 4 years and there is no justification for not giving him salary in the regular pay scale of Class IV employees. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider claim of the petitioners for grant of equal pay for equal work and to pass appropriate order in this regard within a period of 2 months of the date of presentation of copy of this order alongwith the copy of the writ petition. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider claim of the petitioners for grant of equal pay for equal work and to pass appropriate order in this regard within a period of 2 months of the date of presentation of copy of this order alongwith the copy of the writ petition. The grant of the benefit of equal pay for equal work should be effected from 5.7.89 (Writ Petition No. 2888/89) and 4.7.89 (Writ Petition No. 4417/89), the date on which the writ petition was filed before the High Court. The respondents should also consider the claim of the petitioners for regularisation and appropriate order be passed within 3 months. In case the respondents come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to any of the two reliefs, speaking order should be passed and conveyed to the petitioner within 3 months. Costs made easy.Writ Petition Allowed. *******