JUDGMENT 1. 1. Although, seven prayers have been made in the writ petition, in substance, it can be said that two-fold prayers have been made by the petitioner in his writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed for declaration that the order dated, 14.11.90 is illegal and void; that he is entitled to be paid salary in the regular pay-scale of Mistry Gr. II in accordance with the principles of equal pay for equal work enshrined in Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner passed Secondary Examination and then received training in Bio-gas. He was appointed as Mistry Gr. II in Bio-gas Project under the District Rural Development Agency, Ajmer on the basis of his appointment made w.e.f. 17.10.86. this appointment of the petitioner was preceded by a selection held on 16.10.86 by a committee of four members. He was attached with the Panchayat Samiti, Peesangan. Initially, he was paid wages at the rate of Rs. 20/-. Sub-sequently, this amount was enhanced to Rs. 35/- per-month as would appear from communication dated, 11.5.90 (Ex.4), written by the Additional Collector (Development) District Rural Development Agency (Ajmer), which has been addressed to the Dy. Secretary (Agriculture) Group-II, Department, Special Schemes Organisation, Jaipur. The petitioner and two other Mistrys, namely, Shri Nathu Lal and Shri Isaq Mohmmod made representations (Ex-5) to (Ex.7) for payment of salary in the regular scale of Mistry Gr. II. They claimed that they are entitled to be paid salary in the Grade of Rs. 1025-1800/- which came to be prescribed w.e.f. 1.9.88. The representation of the petitioner was forwarded by the Dy. Secretary (Adm.) Special Schemes Organisation to the Additional Collector (Development)-cum-Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Ajmer vide his letter dated, 6.2.90. While, the petitioner and others made demand for being paid salary in the regular pay-scale of the post, an order dated, 2.6.90 was issued by the Additional Collector (Development), District Rural Development Agency, Ajmer, appointing them on daily wages for a fixed period of three months. The term of appointment was extended by orders dated, 6.9.90 and 22.9.90. Subsequently, by an order dated, 14.11.90 (Ex.12), the service of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground of his work not being satisfactory and in accordance with the contract of employment. The term of appointment was extended by orders dated, 6.9.90 and 22.9.90. Subsequently, by an order dated, 14.11.90 (Ex.12), the service of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground of his work not being satisfactory and in accordance with the contract of employment. The petitioner has made a categorical statement that his work has throughout been satisfactory. He has placed reliance on Ex.2, which relates to his performance for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88. Exhibit 3, relates to his performance for the year 1988-89. Exhibit-15, which relates to his performance for the year 1989-90, Exhibit-16, which relates to his performance during the year 1990-91 and also an order dated, 19.1.90 (Ex.13), by which he has been again appointed as a Mistry Gr.II, in the service of the District Rural Development Agency, Ajmer. The petitioner' has come forward with the case that his service has been terminated arbitrarily and on the basis of a wholly irrelevant consideration. The decision to terminate his service has been taken because, he has been making demand for payment of salary in the regular pay-scale of Mistry Gr.II. Regarding regular pay scale, the petitioner has stated that Lower Division Clerks were also engaged under the District Rural Development Agency, Ajmer, on daily wages. They have subsequently been given salary in the regular pay scale of Lower Division Clerks. The petitioner has stated that he had been discharging the same duties as were being discharged by other Mistrys and, therefore, there was no justification for not giving benefit of regular pay-scale to the petitioner. 3. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages for plantation of biogas plants. The job was purely temporary and for a specified period. The so-called selection was made only in order to test the efficiency of the candidates. It has been stated that only two temporary posts of Bio-gas Mistry Gr.II, have been allotted to Ajmer District vide Government order dated, 30.7.91. The appointing authority of the petitioner is the Secretary, Special Schemes Organisation, Jaipur. The District Rural Development Agency has no power to regularise the service of the petitioner on the post of Mistry Gr. II and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim for payment of salary in the regular pay-scale. The appointing authority of the petitioner is the Secretary, Special Schemes Organisation, Jaipur. The District Rural Development Agency has no power to regularise the service of the petitioner on the post of Mistry Gr. II and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim for payment of salary in the regular pay-scale. The case of the L.D.C has been distinguished by alleging that these two posts belong to different cadres and there is no similarity between them. The service of the petitioner has been terminated because his performance has not been found to be satisfactory by the competent authority. The respondents have even denied the statement of the petitioner that he had been continuously serving between 17.10.86 to 14.11.90. 4. In his rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that in fact, three persons were employed as Mistry Gr.II (Bio-gas) under the District Rural Development Agency, Ajmer. Regarding the order dated, 30.7.91, it has been stated that by the said order one post has been taken away from the District Rural Development Agency, Ajmer to District Rural Development Agency, Churu. While reiterating that he was continuously working, the petitioner has stated that the respondents have not placed any material to show as to how the petitioner was not in continuous service. On the basis of the letter dated, 15.4.91 written by the Collector, Ajmer, cum-Chairman, District Rural Development agency, Ajmer, the petitioner has stated that the Collector himself has written that there are three posts of bio-gas Mistrys. The petitioner has then referred to Nathu Lal v. District Rural Development Agency, S.B. C.W.P. No. 1379/91 decided on 28.5.91 and Isaq Mohmmad v. State, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3688/90 decided on 28.8.91 and submitted that both Nathu Lal and Isaq Mohmmod have been ordered by this Court to be paid salary in the Regular Grade of Mistry Gr.II i.e. Rs. 925-1800/-. The petitioner's case is that before termination of his service provisions of section 25-F have not been complied with. His service has been terminated on the false plea of his performance being unsatisfactory. He has asserted that for four years, he had sincerely discharged his duties and, all of a sudden, by alleging unsatisfactory performance he has been removed from service. His service has been terminated on the false plea of his performance being unsatisfactory. He has asserted that for four years, he had sincerely discharged his duties and, all of a sudden, by alleging unsatisfactory performance he has been removed from service. An application dated, 31.1.91 was filed on behalf of the petitioner in order to raise the plea of violation of section 25-F as an additional ground in support of his challenge to the order dated, 14.11.90. This application was allowed by the Court vide order dated, 25.10.91. The petitioner had filed one more application dated, 31.1.91 in which he has stated that after termination of his service, by an order dated, 19.1.91 of the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Ajmer, he has again been appointed as Bio-gas Mistry Gr.II on daily wages. On the strength of this document, the petitioner has urged that the plea of unsatisfactory performance has been concocted by the respondents in order to remove the petitioner from service without any justification. He has filed yet another application dated, 29.8.91 alongwith which he has placed on record a copy of the order dated, 21.8.91, by which the petitioner has been transferred from District Rural Development Agency, Ajmer to District Rural Development Agency, Churu. He has prayed that this order may be taken on record and may be considered at the time of hearing of the petition. 5. The first contention advanced by Shri Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the termination of the service of the petitioner vide order dated, 14.11.90 is illegal and arbitrary. He argued that the order of termination is liable to be quashed only on the ground that it has been issued without compliance of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the basis of the various certificates issued by the Project Director and the Vikas Adhikari. Shri Pareek then argued that the petitioner has wrongly been denied benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work. He referred to the two decisions of this Court dated, 28.5.91 and 28.8.91 in support of his submission that the petitioner is entitled to be paid salary in the regular pay-scale. 6. Shri Pareek then argued that the petitioner has wrongly been denied benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work. He referred to the two decisions of this Court dated, 28.5.91 and 28.8.91 in support of his submission that the petitioner is entitled to be paid salary in the regular pay-scale. 6. Miss Sumitra Goyal, on the other hand, opposed the writ petition by arguing that the service of the petitioner has been dispensed with in terms of the contract of employment, because, the performance of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory. Regarding the claim that equal pay for equal work Miss Goyal argued that since the petitioner has not been given regular appointment, he cannot claim benefit of payment of salary in the regular pay-scale. Miss Goyal was called upon by the Court to show as to whether the petitioner was given any warning during four years of his service regarding his unsatisfactory performance and as to whether there is any documentary evidence to show that the performance of the petitioner has been evaluated and has been found to be unsatisfactory. She expressed her inability to do so. Miss Goyal was also asked as to how the certificates were issued in favour of the petitioner for his satisfactory performance, if at all, the competent authority had thought that his work was not satisfactory. Learned Dy. Government Advocate could not explain this apparent contradiction. It is important to point out that the affidavit filed in support of the reply shows that the statement of facts made in the reply have been verified on the basis of knowledge derived from official record. However, no official record has been placed before the Court to substantiate the plea of unsatisfactory performance. That apart, the very fact that the petitioner has been given re-appointment just after two months of the termination of his service negatives the theory of unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner. 7. The record shows that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages. He continued to serve for a period of over three years and six months, whereunder the term of appointment was fixed with a stipulation that service can be extended only on satisfactory performance and can be terminated without any notice. The term of appointment was fixed as three months vide order dated, 2.6.90 (Ex.9). He continued to serve for a period of over three years and six months, whereunder the term of appointment was fixed with a stipulation that service can be extended only on satisfactory performance and can be terminated without any notice. The term of appointment was fixed as three months vide order dated, 2.6.90 (Ex.9). This term was extended for one month w.e.f. 8.8.90 vide order dated, 6.9.80 (Ex.10). There was a further extension for a period of one month from 9.9.90 vide order dated, 22.9.90 (Ex.11). This term came to an end on 8.11.90, thereafter, there was no written extension in the term of appointment and the petitioner continued to be on daily wages. From 9.11.90 there was no express contract of employment. The petitioner could at the best be treated as daily wage employee. If total period of service of the petitioner is taken into consideration it becomes clear that he had rendered more than 240 days of service by 14.11.90 (within a span of 12 months counted from the date of termination of service). Therefore, the termination of his service clearly falls within the ambit of the definition of 'retrenchment' under section 2(oo) of the Act of 1947. Admittedly, neither any notice nor wages in lieu thereof nor retrenchment compensation were either paid or offered to be paid to the petitioner before termination of his service was ordered. Thus, there has been a clear violation of section 25-F of the Act of 1947. The nature of the work of the petitioner as Mistri Gr.II can be said to be the work of a skilled labour and he comes within the definition of the term 'workman' as given in section 2(s) of 1947 Act. The District Rural Development Agency undoubtedly is an 'industry' under section 2(j) in view of the fact that it has been created in order to carry out the development work and to render material service to the society. In view of the breach of the provisions of section 25-F the termination of the service of the petitioner vide order dated, 14.11.90 is liable to be quashed. The reason given for his termination, namely, unsatisfactory performance, is also untenable. As already noticed hereinabove, respondents have failed to place any material before the court to justify the assertion contained in the order dated, 14.11.90 that the performance of the petitioner has not been satisfactory. The reason given for his termination, namely, unsatisfactory performance, is also untenable. As already noticed hereinabove, respondents have failed to place any material before the court to justify the assertion contained in the order dated, 14.11.90 that the performance of the petitioner has not been satisfactory. The petitioner had admittedly served for over four years and, if during this entire period, no communication was given to him regarding any lapse in his performance, it is not possible to accept the bald pleas of the respondents that the service of the petitioner has been terminated on account of unsatisfactory work and the respondents have acted arbitrarily and capriciously in bringing about an end to the service of the petitioner after he had worked for over four years. In my considered opinion, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the order dated, 14.11.90 is void. Since the petitioner has already been taken back in service no fresh order of reinstatement will be necessary. He will of course, be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from the declaration that the order dated, 14.11.90 is void. As far as the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of salary in the regular pay-scale of Bio-gas Mistry Gr.II is concerned, after having perused the orders of this Court dated, 28.5.91 and 28.8.91 in the writ petitions of Isaq Mohmmod and Nathu Lal, I am of the opinion that no further elucidation on the question of law is required to be made. Admittedly, Nathu Lal and Isaq Mohmmod were working on daily wages as Bio-gas Mistrys under the District Rural Development Agency, Ajmer. Once these two persons have been allowed the benefit of regular pay scale there can be no reason for not giving similar benefit to the petitioner. It will have to be held that the petitioner's fundamental right of equality in the matter of pay has been violated by the respondents. 8. The writ petition of the petitioner succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The order dated, 14.11.90 (Ex.12) is declared illegal and void and it is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. 8. The writ petition of the petitioner succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The order dated, 14.11.90 (Ex.12) is declared illegal and void and it is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner salary in the regular pay scale of Bio-gas Mistry Gr.II w.e.f. 28.11.90, i.e. the date on which he filed writ petition in the High Court by fixing his pay in the pay scale in which the pay of Isaq Mohmmod and Nathu Lal has been fixed in terms of the directions issued by the High Court in the orders dated, 28.5.91 and 28.8.91 The petitioner's pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the regular pay-scale w.e.f. 28.11.90. He shall be entitled to dearness allowance and other allowance as payable to the similarly situated persons. The arrears payable on account of the order of the Court shall be paid within a period of four months of the date of submission of the certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. Costs made easy.Petition allowed. *******