JUDGMENT R.B. Mehrotra, J. - Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a part-time chaukidar, on J 2-12-1980 while petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a Chaukldar on 8-5-1980. in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and were posted in Jaunpur Depot. The case of petitioner is that they had been working sincerely and honestly continuously since then without any breach and to the entire satisfaction of their superiors. Thereafter, the petitioners contended, that they had been working in shift wise duty, the shift being of 8 hours since the date of their appointment and were being paid Rs. 250/-per month. The Regional Manager has allotted 8 hours duty to each part-time chaukldar vide order, dated 7-9-1982. The petitioner's further contention is that other chaukidar who have been appointed on regular basis in the same Depot are performing the same duties as the petitioners are performing but they are being given salary in the pay scale of Rs. 350/- per month with usual dearness allowance admissible from time to time, house redd and compensatory allowance. The petitioners case is that they are performing the same duties which a regular chaukldar is performing and are doing the same work which a regular chaukldar is doing and as such the petitioners are entitled to the same pay and allowances which a regular chaukidar is getting. 2. In reply to the aforesaid averments made in the writ petition, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners at best can be equated with a daily wager and they cannot be equated with a regular chaukidar. It has been stated that 'since the petitioners are only part-time chokidars' they can at best be treated as daily wages chaukidars and since they are working for 8 hours per day, as such they are entitled wages admissible to daily wage employees. They cannot be treated as a regular chaukidars. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that since there is no vacancy on the post of regular chaukidar and in view of the fact that there is a been against fresh appointments, the corporation is appointing part time chaukidars and daily wages chaukidars. 3. The facts disclosed in the counter affidavit do not dispute the petitioners' contention that the petitioners are doing same work which a regular chaukidar in doing and are performing the same which a regular chaukidar is performing. 3. The facts disclosed in the counter affidavit do not dispute the petitioners' contention that the petitioners are doing same work which a regular chaukidar in doing and are performing the same which a regular chaukidar is performing. It is not disputed that the regular chaukidars are also performing the duty of 8 hours per day shift wise. The only defence taken is that since the petitioners have been appointed as part time chaukidars they are not entitled to be at par with the regular chaukidars. 4. I have heard Sri Mohd. Jafar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. A catena of decisions have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention. In Daily Rates Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and others, reported in (1988) 1 Supreme Court cases, 122 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that daily rated casual labour in post and Telegraph Department doing work similar to that of regular workers of the Department are entitle to minimum pay in the pay scale of regular workers plus dearness allowance without increments from the date of filing of the writ petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held. "It may be true that the petitioners have not been regularly recruited but many of them have been working continuously for more than a year in the department and some of them have been engaged as casual labourers for nearly ten years. They are rendering the same kind of service which is being rendered by the regular employees doing the same type of work. Clause (2) of Article 28 of the Constitution of India which contains one of the Directive Principles of State Policy provides that" the State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people reading in different areas or engaged in different vocations". Even though the above directive principles may not be enforceable as such by virtue of Article 27 of the Constitution of India. It may be relied upon by the petitioners to show that in the instant case have been subjected to hostile discrimination.............................. .. Even though the above directive principles may not be enforceable as such by virtue of Article 27 of the Constitution of India. It may be relied upon by the petitioners to show that in the instant case have been subjected to hostile discrimination.............................. .. .................................we are of the view that cm the facts and in the circumstances of this case the classification of employees into regularly recruited employees and casual employees for the purpose of paying less than the minimum pay payable to employees in the corresponding regular cadres particularly in the lowest runs of the department where the pay scales are the lowest is not tenable." 6. Similar view has been taken in Jaipal and others v. State of Haryana and others, (1988) 3 Supreme Court case, 154 where part time teachers were equated with whole time teachers. In Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1173 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that equal pay for equal work has assumed the status of fundamental right and is applicable with full vigour to establishment which is instrumentality of state. 7. In view of these decisions and in view of the facts of this case, I am clearly of the opinion that the petitioners were doing the same work Which their counterparts on regular side were doing and were performing the same duties which the regular chaukidars in the Department were performing and as such the petitioners were entitled to get the same pay which the regular chaukidars are getting in the department, 8. The writ petition accordingly succeeds. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioners the same minimum salary which regular chaukidars in the Department are getting plus dearness allowance and other allowances. The petitioners will be entitled to get their salary and others allowances from the date they have filed the present writ petition is this Court, The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs.