Mr. C. M. Nayar, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition is filed on behalf of Part-time Community employees of the Community Service Department of the respondent, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner no. 1 is aregisteredunion of such part-time employees and petitioner no. 2 is a member of thesaid Union. They are claiming relief on behalf of their members forregularisation, as well as, for equal pay for equal work. ( 2 ) THE Part-time Community employees of the Municipal Corporationof Delhi are working in the Community Services Department of the Corporation. The total sanctioned posts of part-time Community employees is 460. There are 36 employees who have put in more than 10 years of service. 100employees have put in 5 to 10 years of service and the remaining have put inless than 5 years service. The said part-time Community employees are beingpaid consolidated salary of Rs. 500. 00 per month whereas the regular Communityemployees and Assistant Community Organisers, who are also performing thesame job, are in the regular pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 and 1350-2200 afterfourth Pay Commission recommendations. The regular employees are alsoentitled to all consequential benefits of regular employees such as Dearnessallowance, H. R. A. etc. The part-time employees are not entitled to any suchbenefits and only have to be content with consolidated salary of Rs. 500. 00. ( 3 ) IT is further contended that the regular employees work for sixhours a day with half an hour lunch break, whereas the part-time communityemployees work for four hours a day with no break and if the benefits of leaveetc. are taken into consideration, the total man hours put in by regularemployees in a year come to 1243 hours whereas part-time employees workfor 1084 hours. There is, therefore, a marginal difference in the hours put inby the regular employees, as compared to the part-time employees, who arealso deprive of the various benefits, which are given to the regular employees. The majority of part-time Community employees are engaged in teaching joband if the benefit of leave, vacation etc. are granted to them, the said employeeswould have worked for more hours than the regular employees as employedwith the Corporation. The majority of part-time Community employees are engaged in teaching joband if the benefit of leave, vacation etc. are granted to them, the said employeeswould have worked for more hours than the regular employees as employedwith the Corporation. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has claimed the relief of regularisation and equation with the regular employees, as well as, equal pay for equalwork for the members of the petitioner s Union, who constitute the categoryof part-time community employees. He has further cited various judgments ofthe Supreme Court to support the preposition that denial of minimum pay inpay scales of regularly employed employees amounts to exploitation of labourand classification of casual labourers for the purpose of different rate of wages isviolative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reference maybemade to the judgments as reported in Randhir Singh v. Union of India andothers (1982)3 S. C. R. 298, Dhirendra Chamoli and Another v. State of U. P. (1986) I Supreme Court cases 637, Daily Rated Casual Labour employed underp and T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of Indiaand Others AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2342, Jaipal and Others v. State of Haryanaand Others JT 1988 (2) S. C. 528, Y. K. Mehta and Others v. Union of India andanother JT 1988 (3) S. C. 466 and Harish Chander Sharma and Others v. Unionof India and Others 1988 (1) Delhi Lawyer 305. ( 5 ) IN Daily Rated Casual Labour (supra) their Lordships of Hon ble Supreme Court held: "the Government cannot take advantage of its dominant position,and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starvingwages. It may be that the casual labourer as agreed to work on suchlow wages. That he has done because he has no other choice. It ispoverty that has driven him to that state. The Government shouldbe a model employer. Therefore, the classification, of employees intoregularly recruited employees and casual employees rendering thesame kind of service which is being rendered by the regular employeesdoing the same type of work by the Posts and Telegraphs Department for the purpose of paying less than the minimum pay payableto employees in the corresponding regular cadres particularly in thelowest rungs of the department where the pay scales are the lowestwould not be tenable. "in Randhir Singh (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court held : "it is true that the principal of "equal pay for equal work" is notexpressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Article 39 (d) of theconstitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men andwomen" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. "equal pay forequal work for both men and women" means equal pay for equalwork every one and as between the sexes. Directive Principles haveto be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny anyperson equality before the law or the equal protection of the lawsand Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunityfor all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of theconstitution must mean something to everyone. To the vastmajority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitutionwould mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they doand the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have somesubstance if equal work means equal pay. Questions concerningwages and the like mundane they may be, are yet matters of vitalconcern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses ofthe Constitution have any significance to them. The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India toconstitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word socialist must mean something. Even if it does notmean to each according to his need , if it does not mean to eachaccording to his need , it must at least mean equal pay for equalwork". ( 6 ) REFERENCE may also be made to the judgment as reported indhirendra Chamoli and Another (supra), wherein the Supreme Court held that itwas not open to the Government to deny such benefits to casual workers onground of acceptance of their employment with full knowledge of the disadvantage and such denial would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ofindia. ( 7 ) IN Y K. Mehta and Others (supra) the Supreme Court categoricallyheld that equal pay for equal work as embodied in Articles 37 and 39 (d) ofthe Constitution of India and contained in Directive principles of the State,though not enforceable by any Court, are intended to be implemented by thestate on its own accord to promote welfare of the people. ( 8 ) IN Jaipal and Others (supra) the Supreme Court, while dealing withthe case of Haryana Education Department, came to the conclusion that natureof duties and functions performed by Instructors were similarly to thoseperformed by squad teachers and doctrine of equal work for equal pay wouldapply to the premise of similar work but it does not mean that there should becomplete identify in all respects. A temporary or casual employee performingthe same duties and functions is entitled to the same as paid to a permanentemployee. The difference in mode of selection will not affect the application ofthe doctrine of equal work equal pay. ( 9 ) THE respondent Corporation has explained the brief history of therecruitment of part-time community employees and has explained that theconcept was synonymous as that of social community service with the aim ofdeveloping self spirit and community action programme and only the dedicatedworkers were selected and they were given a fixed emoluments. The part-timeemployees are required to work only for four hours, as against the normal 7hours working in a day by the regular employees. They were never equatedwith the regular emoloyees and, therefore, were not eligible for higher salaryas was payable to the regular employees. ( 10 ) THE petitioners in the present case have been employed ascommunity part-time employees and they put in nearly the same number ofhours as are put in by the regular employees. They are paid a consolidatedsalary of Rs. 500. 00. whereas, the regular employees are in the revised grade ofrs. 950-1500 and Rs. 1350-2200 respectively. There has been total stagnationand no improvement even in the consolidated salary of the petitioners who arerepresented by their Union and no benefits such as Dearness Allowance,h. R. A. etc. are available to them. The jobs are also transferable. 500. 00. whereas, the regular employees are in the revised grade ofrs. 950-1500 and Rs. 1350-2200 respectively. There has been total stagnationand no improvement even in the consolidated salary of the petitioners who arerepresented by their Union and no benefits such as Dearness Allowance,h. R. A. etc. are available to them. The jobs are also transferable. ( 11 ) THE Supreme Court has clearly settled the law that the employees cannot be discriminated on superficial grounds and they are entitled to thebenefit of principles of equal pay for equal work and they cannot continuouslybe given a consolidated salary, which is far lower than the salary paid to theregular employees for similar work. It is established that in the present casethe employees are performing the same duties and functions although it may beargued that they put in marginally lesser number of hours. I will, therefore,hold that the petitioners are entitled to the same pay and the same pay scale,as available to regular community employees, employed on regular basis bythe respondent Corporation. This will, however, be subject to the proportionatehours, the petitioners put in as part-time community employees. I direct thatthe respondent Corporation shall work out the salaries of the petitioners onthis basis and award the same. This will, however, have prospective effect andthe employees shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay as a result of thisdirection. ( 12 ) THE other point, which has been canvassed before me, is withregard to the regularisation of the employees of the petitioner No. 1. Referencemay be made to the additional affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondentcorporation. Paragraph 2 of the said affidavits reads as follows :- "that on date there are 94 sanctioned posts of Community workerin the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 (46+48 sanctioned by the Standingcommittee vide Resolution No. 423 dated 17. 5. 89) in the Communityservice Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Atpresent 47 posts (30+17) filled up and out of which 7 Communityworkers are working on current duty charge basis as Assistant Community Organiser. At present we have 47 posts which are lying vacant. As per recruitment regulations (as approved by the Corporation inconcurrence with the UPSC vide its Resolution No. 265 dated 3. 7. 84and enforce ). The method of recruitment is 100% by promotion fromamongst Community Worker (Part time) with 5 years regular servicein the grade failing which by direct recruitment. At present we have 47 posts which are lying vacant. As per recruitment regulations (as approved by the Corporation inconcurrence with the UPSC vide its Resolution No. 265 dated 3. 7. 84and enforce ). The method of recruitment is 100% by promotion fromamongst Community Worker (Part time) with 5 years regular servicein the grade failing which by direct recruitment. These RRs havebeen notified by Delhi Administration vide Gazette Notificationno. F. 9 (3)/88-LSG/7682 dated 21. 9. 89". ( 13 ) THE relevant Rule, laying down the conditions for promotion forpart-time community employees to community employees on regular basis, iscontained in Regulation 11 and the same reads as follows : "ii. In case of rectt. by Promotion : Communitypromotion/deputation/ Worker (Part-time) withtransfer, to be made. five years regular service in the grade ( 14 ) THE earlier Regulation 10, which laid down that 50 per cent ofthe posts shall be filled in by promotion and 50 per cent by direct recruitmentwas amended by resolution No. 136 dated June, 7, 1983, and all the posts arenow to be filled by promotion. The additional affidavit of the respondentcorporation clearly indicates that some posts are still lying-vacant and theyhave yet to be filled in. ( 15 ) I, therefore, direct the respondents to fill up such posts andaccommodate the petitioners as Community employees on regular basis in orderof their seniority and subject to their being found eligible in terms of theregulations as framed. The remaining part-time employees shall be accommodated as and when the vacancies arise in future and they are found eligible forthe same. ( 16 ) THE petition, as a consequence, is allowed in the above terms andthe rule is made absolute. The respondent Corporation shall comply withthe directions within a period of two months. There shall be no order as tocosts.