JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the order dated 7th October 1991 of the learned Single Judge of this court under which the learned Single Judge has allowed the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1890/1991 filed by respondent No. 1 Devkinandan. 2. Jawahar Rozgar Yojana is a central scheme in order to provide employment to rural poor section. Certain posts of Lower Division Clerks on daily wages were created upto 28th February 1989 in the various Panchayat Sanutis and the Additional Collector (Development) Alwar under his order dated 27th August 1990 appointed as many as 14 persons on daily wages basis as L.D.Cs. upto 28th February 1991 for the proper implementation of the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (for short JRY). So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was appointed and posted as L.D.C. on daily wages basis under the aforesaid order in Panchayat Samiti Kathumar District Alwar. 3. As the appointment of the petitioner was only upto 28th February 1991, the post was also created only upto that date, his appointment came to an end after eflux of time and thereafter it was not extended. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this court on the ground that the action of the respondents amounts to retrenchment. 4. It will be seen from the grounds raised in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner set up a case that because there was no complaint against him and he has worked satisfactorily, he hoped that he will be confirmed and regularised, he had a right of regularisation and should not be retrenched. The learned Single Judge under the impugned order allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioner has a right to continue in service till post against which he had been appointed exists i.e. upto 29th February, 1992. He also directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of salary in the regular pay scale of the post of L.D.C. w.e.f. 1.4.1991 i.e. the date of filing of the writ petition. The prayer of the petitioner for regularisation was declined. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. There can be no dispute that the posts of L.D.Cs. on daily wages basis were created for execution/implementation of JRY, a centrally sponsored scheme. The prayer of the petitioner for regularisation was declined. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. There can be no dispute that the posts of L.D.Cs. on daily wages basis were created for execution/implementation of JRY, a centrally sponsored scheme. Earlier it was under the District Rural Development Agency (for short DRDA), but later on it appears that the implementation of the said scheme was by the Panchayat Samitis and that is why the appointment of the petitioner and others was made by the Additional Collector (Development) and the petitioner was posted in Panchayat Samiti Kathumar District Alwar. It will be seen from a bare reading of Annexure-1 dated 27th August 1990 under which the petitioner and others were appointed that the petitioner was only appointed upto 28th February 1991 from the date he joined his services. As said earlier, there was no extention so far as the term of appointment of the petitioner is concerned. No doubt it does appear that lateron temporary posts had been created in JRY were extended upto 29th February 1992 vide circular dated 13th August 1991, but so far as petitioner is concerned, as said earlier his services came to an end on 28th February 1991 and ever on the date of circular under which the period of the sanctioned posts of LDC was extended upto 29th February 1992 was not in service. It is not the case of the petitioner nor it has been argued before us that after the extention of the post of LDC as aforesaid anybody else was appointed in place of the petitioner and the right of the petitioner was ignored. Thus, the petitioner did not work after 28th February 1991. By the very nature of the scheme all the posts of LDCs. which were created were temporary and no right for regularisation is vested in any person. Not only this, such a person who was appointed on daily wages could have no right of Equal Pay for Equal Work on the ground that nature of duties were not same because the Apex Court in the Case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, AIR 1992 SC 789 has said that they have no right for regularisation as well as for equal pay. The Apex Court said as under: "The above figures show that if the resources used by the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna were in their entirety to be used for providing full employment throughout the year, they would have given employment only to a small percentage of the population in need of income, the remaining vast majority being left with no income whatsoever. No fault could, therefore, be found with the limited object of the scheme given the limited resources at the disposal of the State. Those employed under the scheme, therefore, could not ask for more than what the scheme intended to give them. To get an employment under such scheme and to claim on the basis of the said employment, a right to regularisation is to frustrate the scheme itself. No Court can be a party to such exercise. It is wrong to approach the problems of those employed under such schemes with a view to providing them with full employment and guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. These concepts, in the context of such schemes are both unwarranted and misplaced. They will do more harm than good by depriving the many of the little income that they may get to keep them from starvation." 7. It will, therefore, be clear that the persons who were employed under the scheme like JRY can only claim what is provided by the scheme and no more. They cannot claim either regularisation or equal pay on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work. Therefore, when the petitioner was appointed as LDC on daily wages basis in JRY, when the posts of LDCs. were for execution of the scheme, were created on daily wages basis, he can only claim daily wages and were not entitled for equal pay for equal work. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner was also not entitled to the minimum pay and the pay scale of LDC along with allowances. We are also of the opinion that the petitioner was only appointed upto 28th February 1991 and as said earlier his term came to an end on that date and merely because in August 1991 the post of LDCs. were extended, it does not entitle the petitioner even for daily wages for the period from 1.3.1991 to 29.2.1992. 8. We are also of the opinion that the petitioner was only appointed upto 28th February 1991 and as said earlier his term came to an end on that date and merely because in August 1991 the post of LDCs. were extended, it does not entitle the petitioner even for daily wages for the period from 1.3.1991 to 29.2.1992. 8. Consequently, we hereby allow the special appeal, set aside the order dated 7th October 1991 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.Special Appeal Allowed. *******