JUDGMENT : S.R. Singh, J. Petition in hand has been filed by the Association of Class IV employees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its President Sri Nishit Varma praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh the High Court through its Registrar and the Chief Justice to regularise the services of those of the Class IV daily rated employees, who have been serving in the establishment of the office of High Court since the years between 1979 and 1981 and also to provide all the facilities and financial benefits to the Daily rated unregularised Class IV employees working) in the establishment of the High Court at par with their regular counter parts performing identical duties. 2. The facts on which the reliefs claimed are founded, are not in dispute. Annexure 1 to the writ petition is a combined list prepared and drawn on 27-7-1984 of the Daily rated employees/labourers selected for appointment to the post of peon. It has come in the counter affidavit (para 6 of the affidavit of Sri Haroon Ahmad, U.D.A. in A/C (D) Litigation Cell High Court) that the employees, who figure at serial Nos. 1 to 78, have already been absorbed in regular service as peon and those enumerated at serial Nos. 80, 88 and 83 too have been provided regular employment as Drivers and the one mentioned at serial No. 81 has been promoted/appointed to a post in Class-3 cadre. In respect of rest of the Daily rated C|ass-4 employees appointed on various dates between the years 1979 and 1981 as mentioned in the list (Annexure-1 to to the writ petition), the defence, as set out in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, to the Petitioner’s claim of regularisation is that the services of the members of the Petitioner-Association cannot be made regular unless there are vacancies of such number of posts as may be required to regularise them, are sanctioned by Respondent No. 1 i.e. the State of Uttar Pradesh It has been averred in paragraph 7 of the Counter Affidavit that they will be given regular appointment as and when vacancy occurs from time to time. As regards the second relief, it has been averred in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, that only the regular employees of Class-IV cadre are entitled to uniform/liveries and the Daily rated Class-IV employees, it is alleged, are not entitled to be supplied dress/uniform/liveries or allowances therefor, nor are they entitled to get annual increments in pay, though it is conceded, they are entitled to get pay and bonus in terms of the relevant Government orders. 3. To complete the chain of facts, it may be stated that during the course of argument, it did appear to me to be necessary, with a view to avoiding multiplicity of litigation, to address myself to the causes of Daily rated/Casual employees belonging to Class-IV cadre in the establishment of the High Court as a whole and not only in respect of those who are covered by the list Annexure-1 to the writ petition and it is with this view that the Standing Counsel was directed by order dated 6-12-1991 to file a supplementary Counter Affidavit, delineating details about sanctioned strength of permanent and temporary Class IV posts in the establishment of the High Court, along-with the number of vacancies, if any against posts and the number of temporary/adhoc/daily rated Class-IV employees working in the 'establishment'. In compliance with the said order, a supplementary counter affidavit was filed by Sri Haroon Ahmad, Upper Devision Asstt posted in Litigation Cell, High Court, Allahabad. Annexure 1 to the said supplementary Counter Affidavit gives details of sanctioned strength of permanent and temporary Class IV employees in the establishment of the High Court at Allahabad (excluding Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court) and the number of vacancies, if any, as on 6-1-1992. Annexure 3 to the said affidavit contains information regarding sanctioned strength of Class-IV (permanent & temporary) posts at Lucknow Bench of the High Court together with a list of temporary/adhoc/daily rated Class-IV employees working in the Lucknow Bench as on 17/18-12-91, accompanied by a covering letter of even date written by Sri H.D. Kandpal, Dy. Registrar, High Court, Lucknow Bench Lucknow to Sri P.C. Agarwal, the then Additional Registrar High Court, Allahabad in response to letter No. 2924/Litigation Cell dated December 10, 1991. Registrar, High Court, Lucknow Bench Lucknow to Sri P.C. Agarwal, the then Additional Registrar High Court, Allahabad in response to letter No. 2924/Litigation Cell dated December 10, 1991. From the letter dated 9-1-1992 of Sri H.D. Kandpal addressed to Sri P.C. Agarwal, it appears that in the list aforesaid, one permanent Driver was omitted besides one Daily Labourer Ram Asrey appointed as Photo Machine Operator. 4. The sanctioned strength of permanent and temporary Class-IV employees in the establishment of the High Court at Allahabad as on 6-1-1992 was as under: SI. No. Post Sanctioned permanent Posts Vacancy if any Sanctioned temp. Posts Vacancy if any 1. Drivers 4 -- 44 -- 2. Jamadars 40 -- 12 -- 3. Bundle Lifters 6 -- -- -- 4. Daftaries 14 -- -- -- 5. Farrash 16 -- -- -- 6. Fireman 1 -- -- -- 7. Waterman 2 -- -- -- 8. Chowkidar 1 -- -- -- 9. Cycle Chowkidar 1 -- -- -- 10. Coolie 2 1 -- -- 11. Electrician 1 -- -- -- 12. Helpers to Electrician 3 1 -- 13. Photo copier Machine Operator 1 -- -- -- 14. Cook 1 -- -- - 15. Blind Kursi Bunkar 1 -- -- -- 16. Bhisti 2 -- -- - 17. Liftman 11 1 -- -- 18. Peon 153 -- 31 - 19. Sweepers 16 -- -- -- 5. Similarly, the sanctioned strength of permanent and temporary Class-IV posts at Lucknow, as on 18-12-1991, was as under: SI. No. Name of post Permanent Temporary Total 1. Daftaries 5 1 6 2. Bundle Lifteis 1 -- 1 3. Jamadars 10 3 13 4. Peons 48 10 58 5. Head Mali 1 -- 1 6. Mails 9 -- 9 7. Waterman 1 -- 1 8. Farrash 4 -- 4 9. Sweepers 4 -- 4 10. Peon to Lr. (voted) 1 -- 1 11. Photo Copier Machine Operator 1 -- 12. Drivers -- 12 12 13. Kursi Bunkar -- 1 1 6. A list of 137 Daily labourers working in the establishment of the High Court at Allahabad has also been filed alongwith Annexure-2 to the said supplementary counter-affidavit. The list shows that the first one of the Daily labourers namely Basni-IV was appointed on 1-8-1980 and the last one Ram Naresh Kannaujia on 5-8-91. Kursi Bunkar -- 1 1 6. A list of 137 Daily labourers working in the establishment of the High Court at Allahabad has also been filed alongwith Annexure-2 to the said supplementary counter-affidavit. The list shows that the first one of the Daily labourers namely Basni-IV was appointed on 1-8-1980 and the last one Ram Naresh Kannaujia on 5-8-91. Some of these Class-IV employees including the last one, were initially appointed as Casual labourers In addition to the said list, there is another list consisting of seven Class-IV employees namely, Rajendra Prasad Rawat, Virendra Kumar, Munna Lal, Faizan Ahmad, John Scissor, Laxman Tripathi and Jokhan Ahir, each one of them is shown to be drawing wages at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. In addition to these lists, there is a list of 136 Casual labourers from Shyam Lal to Smt. Bitti Devi appointed between 1-3-88 and 1-12-91. All these Casual labourers are shown as being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 25/- per working day The list of temporary/adhoc/Daily rated Class IV employees working in the establishment of the High Court at Lucknow Bench consists of 123 employees, some of whom are shown as being paid salary/wages at the rate of Rs. 1428/- per month, while some others at the rate of Rs. 25/-per day. Period of their appointments falls between 11-8-83 and 27-5-91 (both the dates inclusive) except Sri Ramu, who was appointed on 1-8-1978 as a regular peon, but as a result of some disciplinary action, he is shown to have been reverted to the post of Daily labourer. 7. A perusal of the Chart showing the sanctioned strength of permanent and temporary posts in the establishment of the High Court (both at Allahabad and Lucknow, would indicate that the Daily labourers and Casual labourers (In short DL/CL) referred to above, have out-numbered the sanctioned strength of permanent and temporary posts in Class-IV cadre. The questions which arise for consideration are, (1) Whether any direction can be issued for the regularisation of such employees, and (2) whether nomenclatural classification of the employees for purposes of payment of wages/salary is justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case, and (3) whether any direction can be issued for payment of salary to employees designated as Casual labourers at par with those who are designated as daily labourers. 8. 8. The questions of regularisation of adhoc/Daily rated/Casual employees and of equal pay for equal work have engaged the attention of this Court as also of the apex Court of the land, from time to time, in a large number of cases and the Courts have also endeavoured to do justice in individual cases within the periphery of the Constitution, but a perusal of various decisions of the apex Court on the point in issue, divulges that the question of regularisation defies solution of universal application. There may be more reasons to it than one but the principal factor appears to be the indiscriminate/indiscreet appointments on Adhoc/Daily rated/casual basis, as if the process had been elevated to the status as the order of the day. However, in a case where it is found that Adhoc/Daily rated/Casual employees have been allowed to work for a considerable length of time, the courts have always sought to direct their regularisation within the frame-work of the Constitution. 9. In the case of The Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association and others, etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and others etc., AIR 1990 SC 883 (para 11), it has been observed by the Supreme Court as under. We have referred to several precedents--all rendered within the current decade--to emphasise upon the feature that equal pay for equal work and providing security for service by regularising casual employees within a reasonable period have been unanimously accepted by this Court as the Constitutional goal to our socialistic polity. 10. In another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 SC 1173 , it has been held by the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 at page 1176. Equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the Constitution as a fundamental right put in view of directive principle of state policy as contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitution 'Equal pay for equal work' has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equal pay for equal work and providing security for service by regularising casual employment within a reasonable period has been accepted by this Court as a constitutional goal to our socialistic pattern.... 11. In Randhir Singh Vs. Equal pay for equal work and providing security for service by regularising casual employment within a reasonable period has been accepted by this Court as a constitutional goal to our socialistic pattern.... 11. In Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1982 SC 879 , it has been held by the Supreme Court at pp. 881-882 as under. We concede that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the pay Commission and not for Courts but we must hasten to say that where all things are equal that is. where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments, of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the power, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same...Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to case of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. 12. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya AIR 1993 SC 286 at p. 287-88, it has been held as under: Equal pay for equal work, it is self-evident, is implicit in the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14, it flows from it. Because Clause (d) of Article 39 spoke of "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" it did not cease to be a part of Article 14. To say that the said rule having been stated as a directive principle of State policy is not enforceable in a Court of Law is to indulge a sophistry. Parts IV and III of the Constitution are not supposed to be exclusionary of each other. The rule is as much a part of Article 14 as it is of Clause (1) of Article 16. Parts IV and III of the Constitution are not supposed to be exclusionary of each other. The rule is as much a part of Article 14 as it is of Clause (1) of Article 16. Equality of opportunity guaranteed by Article 16(1) necessarily means and involves equal pay for equal work. It means equally that it is neither a mechanical rule nor does it mean geometrical equality. The concept of reasonable classification and all other rules evolved with respect to Articles 14 and 16(1) come into play wherever complaint of infraction of this rule falls for consideration. 13. In Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) and others Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1988 SC 1291 , it has been observed at p. 1300 as under: In this case the differentiation has been sought to be justified in view of the nature and the types of the work done, that is, on intelligible basis. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive some requiring more tact, some less-it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. If it has a rational nexus with the object sought for as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scales has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived malafide either in law or in fact. * * * * * There may be qualitative differences as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bonafide, reasonable on an intelligible criteria which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is important to emphasise that equal pay for equal work is a concommitant of Article 14 of the Constitution. So long as such value judgment is made bonafide, reasonable on an intelligible criteria which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is important to emphasise that equal pay for equal work is a concommitant of Article 14 of the Constitution. But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal work will be a negation of that right. Elaborating the aforesaid observation the learned Judge further observed thus at page 1300 of AIR: The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive some requiring more tact, some less-it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. If it has a rational nexus with the object to be sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scales has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived malafide either in law or in fact. 14. The same very principle was reiterated by Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others, (1989) 1 SCC 121 . In the matter of employment, the Government of socialist State must protect the weaker sections. It must be ensured that there is no exploitation of poor and ignorant. It is the duty of the State to see that the under privileged or weaker sections get their due. Even if they have voluntarily accepted the employment on unequal terms, the State should not deny their basic right of equal treatment. It is against this background that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" has to be construed in the first place. Second this principle has no mechanical application in every case of similar work. It has to be read into Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 permits reasonable classification founded on different bases. It is now well established that the classification can be based on some qualities or characteristics of person grouped together and not in others who are left out. Those qualities or characteristics must, of course, have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. Article 14 permits reasonable classification founded on different bases. It is now well established that the classification can be based on some qualities or characteristics of person grouped together and not in others who are left out. Those qualities or characteristics must, of course, have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters merit or experience could be the proper basis for classification to promote efficiency in administration. He or she learns also by experience as much as by other means. It cannot be denied that the quality of work performed by persons of longer experience is superior than the work of new comers. 15. The Supreme Court Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 1990 SC 334 , it has been observed by Hon. M.M. Dutta J. of the Supreme Court as under: It follows from the above decisions that although the doctrine of equal pay for equal work' does not come within Article 14 of the Constitution as an abstract doctrine, but if any classification, is made relating to the pay scales and such classification is unreasonable and/or if unequal pay is based on no classification then Article 14 will at once be attracted and such classification should be set at naught and equal pay may be directed to be given for equal work. In other words, where unequal pay has brought about discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution, it will be a case of "equal pay for equal work" as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution. If the classification is proper and reasonable and has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" will not have any application even though the persons doing the same work are not getting the same pay. In short, so long as it is not a case of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution the abstract doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" as envisaged by Article 39(d) of the Constitution, has no manner of application nor is it enforceable in view of Article 37 of the Constitution, Dhirendra Chamoli and Another Vs. In short, so long as it is not a case of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution the abstract doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" as envisaged by Article 39(d) of the Constitution, has no manner of application nor is it enforceable in view of Article 37 of the Constitution, Dhirendra Chamoli and Another Vs. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637 is a case of 'equal pay for equal work', as envisaged by Article 14 and not of the abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work. 16. In this connection, the observations made by his Lordship Mr. Justice R.M. Sahai in Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1992 SC 677 , being pertinent, may also be quoted as under. ...An appointment may be temporary or permanent but the nature of work being same and the temporary appointment may be due to exigency of service, non-availability of permanent vacancy or as stop-gap arrangement till the regular selection is completed, yet there can be no justification for paying a teacher, so appointed a fixed salary by adopting a different method of payment than a regular teacher. Fixation of such emoluments is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Const. The evil inherent in it is that apart from the teachers being at the beck and call of the management are in danger of being exploited as has been done by the management committee of State of Karnataka who have utilised the services of these teachers for 8 to 10 years by paying a meagre salary when probably during this period if they would have been paid according to the salary payable to regular teacher they would have been getting much more. Payment of nearly eight months' salary, by resorting to Clause 5, and that too fixed amount, for the same job which is performed by regular teachers is unfair and unjust. A temporary or adhoc employee may not have a claim to become permanent without facing selection or being absorbed in accordance with rules but no discrimination can be made for same job on basis of method of recruitment. Such injustice is abhoring to the Constitutional scheme. In Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. A temporary or adhoc employee may not have a claim to become permanent without facing selection or being absorbed in accordance with rules but no discrimination can be made for same job on basis of method of recruitment. Such injustice is abhoring to the Constitutional scheme. In Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, AIR 1992 SC 789 , the Supreme Court held that "for regularisation there must be regular and permanent posts or it must be established...although the work is of regular and permanent nature, the device of appointing and keeping the workers on adhoc or temporary basis, has been resorted to, to deny them the legitimate benefits of permanent employment. 17. Upon consideration of the aforesaid amongst other authorities of the Supreme Court, a division Bench of this Court in Zakir Hussain Vs. Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Dept. and Others, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 15 has observed as under: ...The position as now stands is that for regularisation of service of an adhoc employee or daily wager, there must be regular or permanent post and funds must also be available for payment of the salary. That apart, he should be qualified and there must be necessity, according to the requirement of the work, for retaining him and his work and conduct in the past must also be satisfactory. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others etc. etc., AIR 1992 SC 2130 , the Supreme Court after noticing the aforesaid case as also the case of Jacob M. Puthuparambil and others Vs. Kerala Water Authority and others, AIR 1990 SC 2228 has observed as under. ...Where a temporary or adhoc appointment is continued for long the court presumes that there is need for regular post and accordingly directs regularisation. 18. Kerala Water Authority and others, AIR 1990 SC 2228 has observed as under. ...Where a temporary or adhoc appointment is continued for long the court presumes that there is need for regular post and accordingly directs regularisation. 18. What is evidently discernible from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases is that for its sustenance, the pay/wage structure of groups/categories of employees working under the State, must stand the test and scrutiny of Articles 14, 16, 38(2) and 39(d) of the Constitution that is to say it must be in accord with the principle of "equal pay for equal work." Further a conspectus of the above authorities of the Supreme Court takes me to the conclusion that just as the right to equal pay for equal work, though not expressly declared by the Constitution as a fundamental right, has been, in view of Article 39(d) of the Constitution given, by the Apex Court of the land, the status of fundamental right to equality in the field of employment enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the right to security in state employment too, in my opinion, must be regarded as a facet of the same very fundamental right, particularly in view of the Directive Principle of State Policy contained in the expression "the State shall endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities" occurring in Article 38(2) of the Constitution. The right to employment/livelihood may or may not be regarded as fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to equality in status, facilities and opportunities among similarly situated/circumstanced group of State employees, must, in my opinion, be regarded as a right directly flowing from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, apart from directive principle of State Policy enshrined in Article 38(2). It is now well settled that rule of law, fairness in State action and absence of arbitrariness are the quintessence of Article 14 of the Constitution and when applied in the field of employment, these principles lead to irresistible conclusion that keeping adhoc/Daily rated/Casual employment as such for years together and thereby depriving such employees of legitimate service benefits, strike at the very root of Article 14 of the Constitution. 19. 19. Daily labourers and Casual labourers may not be regarded as members of the regular Class IV cadre specified in relevant Rule but they can certainly be regarded as members of the 'establishment'. Further the categorisation of the employees falling within Class-4 cadre and determination of their service conditions are within the province of the Chief Justice but in the light of the authorities referred to herein-before, it cannot be gain said that any such classification and determination of service conditions have to stand the test of Articles 14, 16, 38(2) and 39(d) of the Constitution read with preamble thereof. A perusal of the list of Daily labourers and Casual labourers appended to the Suppl. Counter Affidavit would indicate that most of these employees are assigned job/duty at the residences of the Hen Judges and officers of the Court. The first question that I would like to consider is whether different pay/wage rate admissible to Daily labourers on one hand and the Casual labourers on the other hand assigned job/duty at the residences of Judges and officers of the Court, performing identical duties within their respective fields of assignment is sustainable in law. In my opinion, judged from the view point of the principle of "equal pay for equal work', the classification of class IV employees of the High Court into regular Class IV employees and daily labourers/casual labourers performing regular duties as distinguished from occasional employment for doing any casual nature of work depending upon the exigencies of the situation, is not in tune with the Constitutional mandate inherent in Articles 14, 16, 38(2) and 39(d) of the Constitution read with preamble thereof and is violative of "equal pay for equal work" principle expounded by the Apex Court of the land in numerous cases some of which have been referred to earlier in this judgment. 20. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the peons and Sevaks deputed at the residences of the Hon'ble Judges to work there as peons and domestic servants, perform identical duties in their respective fields, irrespective of the fact whether they are designated/categorised as regular peons, daily labourers or casual labourers. 20. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the peons and Sevaks deputed at the residences of the Hon'ble Judges to work there as peons and domestic servants, perform identical duties in their respective fields, irrespective of the fact whether they are designated/categorised as regular peons, daily labourers or casual labourers. In any case there is no difference at all in the nature and volume of work being performed and of duties being discharged by the Daily labourers and casual labourers in their respective fields of assignment at residences of the Hon. Judges. There is, therefore, no justification, to have two separate wage rates or wage structures-one applicable for Daily labourers and the other for Casual labourers performing regular duties at the residences of the Hon'ble Judges and officers of the Court, 21. In my opinion, therefore, leaving aside Casual labourers engaged occasionally for performing any specified duty within a specified time, all the other Casual labourers performing regular duties either in the office or at the residences of the Hon'ble Judges or Officers are entitled to be treated at par with those categorised as 'Daily labourers' in aspect of pay/wage rate and other benefits available to daily labourers under the judgment of the Division Bench in writ petition No.4956 of 1985 decided on 8-3-1986, the relevant part of which is quoted below. So long as they have been performing the same duties they are entitled to receive the same salary applicable to Class IV employees. In this connection, the Respondents’ contention that posts on which some of the Daily labourers have been working, have not been sanctioned, is not relevant material for the purposes of the present petition. Since the Petitioners have been performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as applicable to Class IV employees. x x x x Daily wage labourers discharging the function of peons. Farrash, Coolie, Sweepers, Bhisti, Mali, Fireman, Liftman, Helper, Chaukidars will get the scale of Rs. 305-390 and Bundle Lifters and Daftari will be paid in the scales of Rs. 315-440. Those required to work as Driver or Electricians etc. in the scale of Rs. 330 495 others assigned to the residence of Judges are atleast entitled to be paid the scale of Rs. 305-390 and shall be paid in that scale. 22. 305-390 and Bundle Lifters and Daftari will be paid in the scales of Rs. 315-440. Those required to work as Driver or Electricians etc. in the scale of Rs. 330 495 others assigned to the residence of Judges are atleast entitled to be paid the scale of Rs. 305-390 and shall be paid in that scale. 22. It would amount to hostile discrimination to deny to the Casual labourers discharing regular duties either in the office or at the residences of the Hon'ble Judges and officers of the Court the same very treatment which has been given by the Division Bench in above case to the Daily Labourers discharging identical duties, ft may be observed that nature of duties perfumed by Daily labourers and Casual labourers as Sevak/Domestic Servant of the Hon Judges, is, to some extent,' different from the duties being performed by their counter-parts normally known as Peon to the Hon. Judges. It is for the Chief Justice to lay down respective service conditions and pay scales etc. in consultation with the Governor in the manner indicated in the Rules but so long as that is not done, the Casual labourers performing duties at the residences of the Hon. Judges either as Peon or as Sevaks are entitled to get the same salary i.e. the basic salary admissible to concerned category of employees in regular Class-IV cadre together with Special Pay, D.A. CCA, H.R.A. and Special allowances as per chart dated 18-9-92 given under the signatures of the Court officer Sri. A. Kumar which shall form part of the record. 23. Same principle will govern the casual lobourers working regularly on the post of Drivers or on the post of any other category specified in Rule 4 of the Rules. However, it is made clear that it will not apply to Casual labourers, if any, engaged to perform any specified work of casual nature that is to say those casual labourers who are performing regular duties, are entitled to same pay and allowances which are admissible to Daily labourers and regular Class-IV employees of the concerned category. The Registrar shall draw up afresh a combined list of Daily labourers/Casual labourers performing regular duties in order of seniority to be reckoned from the date of the initial appointment. 24. The Registrar shall draw up afresh a combined list of Daily labourers/Casual labourers performing regular duties in order of seniority to be reckoned from the date of the initial appointment. 24. In the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases noted above and the related provisions contained in Article 229 of the Const, of India and Rules 1,36,40 and 41 of the Allahabad High Court officers, and staff (conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules), the status and rights of the Daily/Casual labourers working in the 'establishment' have now to be examined. 25. Rules 3, 36, 40(2) and 41 of the Rules are quoted as below for ready reference and proper appreciation of the questions involved in the petition; 3. Strength of the establishment, (1) The number of permanent posts of the various categories in classes I, II, III and IV, respectively, in the establishment of the High Court shall be such as may be determined by the Chief Justice from time to time with the approval of Governor of Uttar Pradesh. (2) The Chief Justice may, from time to time, create such temporary posts as may be considered necessary with the approval of the Governor. (3) The Chief Justice may leave unfilled or may hold in abeyance any vacant post without thereby entitling any person to compensation. (4) There shall be separate cadre for each category of posts. X X X X X 36. Pay-The scales of pay admissible to persons appointed to the various categories of posts in the establishment whether in a substantive or officiating capacity or as a temporary measure shall be such as may be determined by the Chief Justice from time to time with the approval of the Governor of U.P. x x x x x 40. Regulation of other matters-(1) All officers and servants of the Court shall be subject to the superintendence and control of the Chief Justice. Regulation of other matters-(1) All officers and servants of the Court shall be subject to the superintendence and control of the Chief Justice. (2) In respect of all matters (not provided for in these rules) regarding the conditions of service of offices and servants of the Court including matters relating to their conduct, control and discipline, the rules and orders for the time being in force and applicable to Government servants holding corresponding posts in the Government of Uttar Pradesh shall apply to the officers and servants of the Court subject to such modifications, variations and exceptions if any, as the Chief Justice may, from time to time specify: Provided that no order containing modifications, variations or exceptions in rules or orders relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions shall be made by the Chief Justice except with the approval of the Governor; Provided further that the said powers exercisable under rules and orders of Government of Uttar Pradesh by the Governor shall be exercised by the Chief Justice or by such officer as he may, by general or special order, direct. (3) If any doubt arises in regard to a particular post in the establishment being corresponding to a post in the State Government, the matter will be decided by the Chief Justice. X X X X X 41. Residuary powers-Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to affect the power of the Chief Justice to make such orders, from time to time, as he may deem fit in regard to all matters incidental or ancillary to these rules not specifically provided herein or in regard to matters as have not been sufficiently provided for: Provided that if any such order relates to salaries, allowances, leave or pension, the same shall be made with the approval of the Governor of U.P. 26. Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India being relevant to the discussion of the question involved in the present case is quoted below. 229... Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India being relevant to the discussion of the question involved in the present case is quoted below. 229... X X X X X (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose; Provided that these rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to Salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State... 27. The Rules do not expressly provide for appointment of Daily Labourers/Casual labourers. But by virtue of Rules 40(2) and 41 of the Rules such appointments may be made to meet the exigencies of the situation on the strength of the orders, if any, issued in that regard from time to time by the State Government or the Chief Justice. This, of course, has to be done subject to and in consonance with the principle of equality enshrined in Articles 38(2) and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. As discussed earlier in this judgment "equal pay for equal work' and providing security for service by regularising casual employment within a reasonable period" have assumed the character of fundamental right directly flowing from Articles 14 and 16 apart from the preamble and Articles 38(2) and 29(d) of the Constitution. 28. From Rule 4 of the Rules, it is evident that Class IV cadre consists of (I) Peon, Farrash, Cooli, Bhisti Sweeper, Mali, Firemen, Chaukidar and Liftman (b) Jamadari (c) Daftari, (d) Buddle Lifter, and (e) Head mali. Appointment to category (a) posts in Class IV cadre is carried by direct recruitment. The permanent and temporary strength of the cadre shall be such as may be determined by the Chief Justice with the approval of the Governor as visualised by Rule 3 of the Rules, 29. In the circumstances of the case in hand, the Court can presume that the High court legitimately requires the services of daily loburers and casual labourers regularly working in the establishment continuously for one year or more over and above those working against sanctioned posts. In the circumstances of the case in hand, the Court can presume that the High court legitimately requires the services of daily loburers and casual labourers regularly working in the establishment continuously for one year or more over and above those working against sanctioned posts. But it cannot determine the strength of the cadre for that is some thing to be done by the Chief Justice with the approval of the Governor. The Petitioner claim for a direction to the Respondents to regularise the services of those of the Class IV employees who have been working in the establishment continuously for a number of years is no doubt based on right to equality in the matter of employment as discussed hereinbefore, besides being based on fairness, Justice, equity and conscience but this, possibly cannot be done unless requisite number of posts are created or are deemed to have been created. 30. In the light of the principles aforesaid, the daily labourers/Casual Labourers performing regular duties in their respective fields of assignment have to be treated alike in tune with the principle of equality and given the service benefits accordingly in accordance with the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the earlier writ petition filed on behalf of the Class IV employees till they are regularised or absorbed in the regular cadre. 31. The lists of Daily labourers and Casual labourers appended to the counter affidavit and suppl. Counter Affidavits indicate that almost each one of these employees has been assigned regular job either in the office or at the residences of the Hon'ble Judges and the officers of the Court. The work and Duties to be performed by such employees at the residences of the Hon'ble Judges or at the residence of such officers as are entitled to get the services of peon at their residence are of regular and not of casual nature. It transpires from the Suppl. Counter Affidavit that there are 153 permanent and 31 temporary posts of peon at Allahabad and 48 permanent and 10 temporary posts of peon at Lucknow Beach. Similarly 48 and 13 posts of Drivers are sanctioned for Allahabad and Lucknow respectively out of which 4 posts are permanent and rest are temporary at Allahabad and one post is permanent and 12 posts of Drivers are temporary at Lucknow. Similarly 48 and 13 posts of Drivers are sanctioned for Allahabad and Lucknow respectively out of which 4 posts are permanent and rest are temporary at Allahabad and one post is permanent and 12 posts of Drivers are temporary at Lucknow. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact the sanctioned strength of the High Court Judges was 60 (55 permanent and 5 additional) as on 15-8-90 and staff cars were provided to the Hon" Judges u/s 22-A of the High Court Judges Conditions of Service Act in 1986-37 and the strength of the Judges has since been raised to 77 (70 permanent and 7 Additional). Each Hon. Judge is entitled to the services of two peons and two Sevaks at his residence, who are to perform duties one after the other for specified hours every day besides a Driver alongwith the Staff Car. These facts, I am giving in order to stress upon the need as to increase in the cadre strength of Class IV employees particularly of the category of Drivers and peons, and as to creation of a new category called 'Sevaks' in Class-IV cadre, deployed at the residences of the Judges if not already specified in Rule 4 of the Rules as also to stress upon the need for determining their service conditions and wage/pay structure under the relevant provisions of the Rules. 32. Now the next question to be considered is in respect of the Petitioner's claim for regularisation of daily labourers. As noticed hereinbefore, the Petitioner’s claim for regularisation is really a claim flowing from Articles 14, 16, 38(2) and 39(d) of the Constitution read with Preamble 33. 32. Now the next question to be considered is in respect of the Petitioner's claim for regularisation of daily labourers. As noticed hereinbefore, the Petitioner’s claim for regularisation is really a claim flowing from Articles 14, 16, 38(2) and 39(d) of the Constitution read with Preamble 33. Although it is true, as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration and State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (supra) and by the Division Bench of this Court in Zahir Hussain's case (supra) that for regularisation, there must be regular posts in the concerned cadre but from the aforesaid authorities, it is also deducible that where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long, the Court presumes that there is need and warrant for regular posts and accordingly directs 'regularisation It is also Reducible from the decision of the Supreme Court in 'Delhi Horticulture Employees Union's case (supra) that where it is found that although the work is of regular and permanent nature, the advice of appointing and keeping the workers on adhoc/temporary basis, has been resorted to, to deny them the legitimate benefits of permanent employment, the Court directs regularisation of service such workers 34. Accordingly though it is true that creation of posts is the Prerogative of the Executive, in the instant case of the Chief justice and the Governor, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, it does appear to me that there is need and warrant for regular posts in Class-IV cadre to accommodate such Daily labourers or Casual labourers who have been performing regular duties for specified number of hours continuously for one year or more. This is so because, in the present case it is not the stand of the Respondents that the services of the Daily labourers/Casual labourer are, in fact, not required nor is It their case that these employees are not suitable for regular appointment on the respective posts held by them. Rather, the only defence taken by the Respondents to the Petitioner's claim of regularisation is the want of sufficient number of sanctioned Posts in Class-IV cadre in the establishment of the High Court. Rather, the only defence taken by the Respondents to the Petitioner's claim of regularisation is the want of sufficient number of sanctioned Posts in Class-IV cadre in the establishment of the High Court. The Petitioner’s argument is that since the employees are continuing m service and discharging regular service for more than one year without any demurring worn any of the relevant quarters regular need of the posts held by them may be Presumed and that the Respondents cannot, by their inaction to do the needful for creation of required number of regular posts, be permitted to deprive these employees of their fundamental right to be provided security in employment by regularising their services as discussed above. 35. The power of appointment of officers and servant of the High Court conferred upon the Chief justice under Article 229 of the Constitution in my opinion comprehend power to create such number and categories of Posts as may be considered by the chief justice to be necessary in connection with the affairs of the high Court. It is to achieve the said objective that Rule 3 of the Rules empowers the Chief justice to determine the number and categories of posts for the establishment of the office of the High Court', which necessarily implies the power to create such posts, of courses, with the approval of the Governor. It is true Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 speaks of the power to create only the temporary posts with the approval of the Governor, but in my opinion the Constitutional mechanism visualized by Articles 229 of the Constitution vests the Chief Justice with the power to create such number of permanent posts as well besides temporary post as may be considered necessary in relation to the affirmed of the high court 36. judged from another angel it can be that the power of the chief (SIC) in the establishment of the high court has necessarily to be read in Article 229 of the Const, for purposes of effective exercise of the power of making appointment of officers and servants of the High Court conferred upon the Chief Justice by virtue of the said Article. It is true that appointments of officers and servants necessarily involve payment of salary, allowances and pension etc. It is true that appointments of officers and servants necessarily involve payment of salary, allowances and pension etc. and as visualised by Clause (3) of Article 229, the same are charged upon the consolidated Fund of the State and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court form part of the said Fund which is under the Control of the Executive but this would not give any supremacy to the Executive over the Chief Justice in the matters aforesaid and the approval, if sought for by the Chief Justice, cannot be declined arbitrarily. The Constitutional scheme and mechanism evolved and envisages by Article 229 of the Const, to ensure, preserve and protect the independence of judiciary, would not achieve Its laudable objective if the power of appointment of officers and Servants of the High Court conferred upon the Chief Justice by Article 229 is directly or indirectly controlled by the Executive in any manner not comprehended by the said Article. 37. The question however, is as to whether the Court may also presume the automatic creation of posts held by Daily rated/Casual employees continuously for a long period and direct regularisation accordingly? 38. Issuing an order or direction commanding the Respondents to regularise the services of the Daily Labourers/Casual labourers means an order or direction to induct such labourers into category (a) of the Class IV cadre visualised by Rule 4 of the Rules which shall necessarily imply creation of posts--permanent or temporary--in that category resulting Into the increase of the strength of the Class IV cadre which can be done only by the Chief Justice with the approval of the Governor due to the reason of financial implications involved in the process. But this does not mean that the Daily/Casual labourers particularity those who are working in the establishment of the High Court for a considerably long spell of time, are entitled to no relief. This Court being the custodian and protector of the Fundamental rights and of the Rule of Law will not hesitate in issuing appropriate writs for the enforcement of the Constitutional rights of dally labourers and casual labourers as discussed above and for the performance of the corresponding obligation/duty Imposed upon the Respondents under the Constitution having due regard to the doctrine of legitimate expectation as expunded by the Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601 . 39. Rule 9 is no doubt couched in a language which suggests that the exercise of power by the Chief Justice is subject to approval of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh but the judgment of the Chief Justice as to what should be the strength of the establishment of the High Court's officer, in my opinion, shall be final subject, of course, to judicial review on permissible grounds by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and it shall not be open for the Governor and for that purposes, the State. Government to sit in appeal over the judgment of the Chief Justice nor is it open to withhold or refuse, on ground of paucity of funds, the approval sought for under Rule 3 of the Rules except, possibly, where it is found by the Government that the revenue earned by the State Government on the count, of court-fee is not sufficient to meet the expenditure as a whole on the administration of justice in the state. It may, however, be observed that if any such ground of refusal to approve of the proposal of the Chief Justice as, regards the number and categories of permanent/temporary posts exists, the same has necessarily and demonstratively to be stated in the order refusing the approval sought for under Rule 3 of the Rules. The Chief Justice, in my opinion, is the absolute authority in the matter of determination of strength of the establishment of the office of the High Court and the Governor's power, under Rule 3 of the Rules, of refusal to accede to the proposal of the Chief Justice, may be exercised within a narrow compass having due regard to the constitutional position of the Chief Justice and the mechanism and safeguards evolved by the Constitution to protect and preserve the independence of judiciary ; the total revenue earned by the State Government of the count of court-fee; and other related and relevant facts, (sec the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 1990 SC 334 Paras 57 and 58 at p. 334, The following observation in the case of All India Judges' Association Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 1990 SC 334 Paras 57 and 58 at p. 334, The following observation in the case of All India Judges' Association Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 165 Para 51 at p. 178 is also relevant in this connection: It is not our intention to raise a dispute on this aspect. We adverted to these authorities and the views of this Court to bring support for the view that what is collected as Court-fee at least be spent on the administration of justice instead of being utilised as a source of general revenue of the States. Undoubtedly the income from Court fees is more than the expenditure on the administration of justice. This is conspicuously noticeable from the figures available in the publication in the Ministry of Law and Justice. 40. In view of the above discussion and conclusion, the following directions are issued to be complied with by the Respondents; (1) Daily labourers and Casual labourers continuously performing regular duties, for one year or more, identical to the duties being performed by regular members of service belonging to any of the categories of employees coming within the purview of Classt-IV cadre, shall be treated alike and paid basic initial salaries/wages admissible to the concerned regular members of service as per G O. No. 1913/Sat-U. Niya/89 dated 30th June 1989 together with D.A. and other allowances leave with pay for such number of days as may be prescribed by the Chief Justice besides the facilities and benefits being availed of by the Daily labourers under and in accordance with the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the earlier writ petition. (1-A) The lists of Daily labourers and Casual labourers doing regular work and performing regular duties, shall be amalgamated and a combined seniority list shall be drawn reckoning their seniority with effect from the date of their initial appointments. Casual labourers, if any, who are called upon only occasionally to perform any nature of work/duty shall not be entitled to be included in the list to be prepared as aforesaid and their list may be drawn separately. (1-B) Casual labourers doing regular nature of work and duties shall not, on the basis of this judgment, be entitled to claim and arrears of salary/wages for any period of their services prior to 1-3-1993. (1-B) Casual labourers doing regular nature of work and duties shall not, on the basis of this judgment, be entitled to claim and arrears of salary/wages for any period of their services prior to 1-3-1993. (1-C) Services of the Casual labourers doing regular nature of work and duties continuously for one year or more (ignoring leave, holidays and vacations) shall not be dispensed with on the ground of being surplus before making an effort to absorb/regularise them into regular cadre in accordance with this judgment. (2) The Registrar shall forthwith start the exercise of re-determination of strength both permanent and temporary-of each category (including 'Sevaks" to the Hon. Judges) of employees of Class IV Cadre having due regard to the sanctioned strength of the Judges and the officers of the Court besides other relevant factors and submit a detailed seaport in that regard to the Chief Justice who shall with the approval of the Governor, determine the strength of the Class IV cadre afresh within a period of four months from today. It is made clear that in the matter of grant of approval to the creation of the required number of posts in different categories of Class-IV cadre the State Government shall be guided by the observations made in the body of this judgment. The State Government shall fake final decision in accordance with this judgment the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the proposal from the Chief Justice for creation of the requisite number of posts. (3) If the Respondents fail to do the needful as aforesaid within the period specified above, temporary posts equal to the number of daily labourers and casual labourers discharging duties continuously for one year or more as on today shall be deemed to have been created. (4) After the re-determination of Cadre strength and creation of deemed creation as the case may be of the requisite number of posts, steps shall be taken forthwith to absorb/regularise the services of daily laboures/casual labourers equal to the number of vacancies determined/created or deemed to have been created as aforesaid. Reglarisation-absorption of remainder of the daily labourers or casual labourers, shall be made form time to time as and when vacancy occurs. (5) There shall be no examination or test for absorption/regularisation. Physical fitness and good conduct in the past shall mainly be the test of suitability for regularisation. Reglarisation-absorption of remainder of the daily labourers or casual labourers, shall be made form time to time as and when vacancy occurs. (5) There shall be no examination or test for absorption/regularisation. Physical fitness and good conduct in the past shall mainly be the test of suitability for regularisation. Qualification as to age will be determined with effect from the date of initial appointment and not with effect from the date the question of abosorption/regularisation is taken up. 41. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed in terms of the above mentioned directions. The parties to bear their own costs.