By order dated 1.9.1993 final order/judgment was reserved in this case after making, inter alia, the following observations: "The case was initially taken up f, r motion and for granting interim order. In course of the hearing I found that no further hearing is necessary for disposal of the case inasmuch as the case can be disposed of on admitted facts. However, learned Govt. Advocate wanted to sub­mit affidavit in detail But I do not consider such further affidavit is at all necessary in view of the fact that the case can be disposed of on the basis of admitted fact as revealed in course of hearing of the case." 2. Being directed by me, the learned Government Advocate has produced two files some days after the hearing was over. Accordingly, the case is being disposed of at motion stage on the basis of undisputed facts of the case and the materials appearing in the aforesaid two files, namely, F. 48 (13-1)/.SWE/ Plan/88 and F.3 (3)-DSWE/ESTT/88(Loose) of the Social Welfare and Social Education Department, Government of Tripura. 3. 28 petitioners have approached this Court for a directions upon the respondents not to terminate their services from the post of school mother and to regularise their services and to allow them salary and allowances payable to regularly appointed school mother on the ground of equal pay for equal work and also to make payment of their arrears of salary etc. as no payment has been made to them since they joined the post of school mother about 8/9 months ago. 4. The case, in short, is that petitioners were unemployed and they were searching for suitable employment commensurate with their qualifications. Their names were registered with the Employment Exchange. Additional Director, Social, Welfare & Social Education (respondent No. 2 by his Memo dated 1.1.1993 issued offer of appointment in favour of the petitioners and many others on temporary basis for the post of school mother on consoli­dated pay of Rs. 500/- only PM with effect from the date of their joining the said posts on certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. For the purpose of the present case two such conditions are very material. The first condition is that the appointment was made purely on temporary basis for a period of 12 months with effect from the date of joining the post. For the purpose of the present case two such conditions are very material. The first condition is that the appointment was made purely on temporary basis for a period of 12 months with effect from the date of joining the post. Other important conditions stipulates that the appointment may be terminated at any time by a month's notice given by either side, namely, the appointee or the appointing authority without assigning any reason. Said condition further stipulates that the appointing authority reserved the right to terminate the services of the appointees forthwith or before the expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment of salary equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof. 5. It may be mentioned here that the posts to which the petitioners were so favoured with offer of appointment are D category of Class IV post. This is the lowest class of regular post under the respondents. They were not given the pay scale payable to school mothers who are appointed on regular basis. They were given a fixed pay of Rs. 500/- only per month. The said offer of appointment further discloses that the petitioners and others were entertained against the post created vide Education Department (SW and SC) Government of Tripura, Memo No.F.48(13-l)-SWE/Plan/88 dated 23.10.1992 and the expenditure on this account would be debitable to the Head of Account-2236-Nutrition (Plan), 02-Distribution of Nutrition food and Bevarages, 101-Special Nutrition Programme, 1 Salaries. Petitioners duly communicated acceptance of the aforesaid offer of appointment. 6. Soon thereafter respondent No. 2 vide Memo dated 2.1.1993 issued the appointment letters in favour of the petitioners and others to the aforesaid posts on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- only per month. Unfortunately, even that meager salary has not been paid to the petitioners since they joined the aforesaid posts and working in the same posts regularly from January, 1993. Petitioners also made several representation to the authorities for payment of their salaries and yet except some vague verbal assurances no payment has been made till today though the services of the petitioners are being utilised regularly without any break whatsoever since they joined the aforesaid posts some time in the month of January, 1993. Petitioners also made several representation to the authorities for payment of their salaries and yet except some vague verbal assurances no payment has been made till today though the services of the petitioners are being utilised regularly without any break whatsoever since they joined the aforesaid posts some time in the month of January, 1993. Further case of the petitioners is that they have recently come to know that respondents are trying to termin­ate the services of petitioners without making any payment of their salaries. In these circumstances, the petitioners have prayed for issuing Writ/directi­ons upon the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioners and to pay them their salaries equivalent to the salaries and allowances paid to other school mothers appointed on regular basis and to clear all outstanding salaries of the petitioners since they joined the said posts of school mother some time in January, 1993 and also to regularise their appointments. 7. I have heard Mr.DB Sengupta and BB Deb, learned counsel the for the petitioners at length. ^1 have also heard Mr. UB Saha, learned Government Advocate. 8. Learned Government Advocate first referred to the terms and condit­ions stipulated in the offer of appointment. His case is that the petitioners having joined the said services after accepting the terms and conditions stipulated in the offer of appointment cannot claim regular appointment or salary equivalent to that paid to other school mothers appointed on regular basis. It means that a Government establishment under the Constitution of India professing socialism as the goal of the Constitution after 42nd amend­ment can practice discrimination in the matter of pay scale and even exploit the labour of these poor and disadvantaged petitioners. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the petitioners were appointed without follow­ing the formalities as required under Article 16 of the Constitution. They were appointed without going through the process of selection. Their names were also not sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. No advertisement was issued that such posts would be filled up atleast for a period of 12 months. Therefore learned Govt. Advocate submits that the services of the petitioners can be legally terminated in view of the terms and conditions stipulated in the offer of appointment and in view of the fact that in their appointment the provisions of Article 16 have been violated. 9. Therefore learned Govt. Advocate submits that the services of the petitioners can be legally terminated in view of the terms and conditions stipulated in the offer of appointment and in view of the fact that in their appointment the provisions of Article 16 have been violated. 9. It may be noted that the first conditions stipulated in the offer of appointment is that the appointment of the petitioners were made purely on temporary basis for 12 months with effect from the date of joining the post. It is also the admitted position of the case that the petitioners joined the said posts some time in January, 1993. Their services are sought to be terminated before the expiry of 12 months. To justify this aspect of the case, learned Govt. Advocate has drawn my specific attention to the second condition/term stipulated in the offer of appointment which is quoted below : "The appointment may be terminated at any time by a month's notice given by either side, namely, the appointee or the appointing authority without assigning any reason. Said conditions further stipulate that the appointing authority reserves the right of termination of the service of the appointees forthwith or before the expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment of salary equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of notice on the unexpired portion thereof." 10. In course of hearing, learned Govt. Advocate produced the termina­tion orders issued on 26.8.1993 in respect of the petitioners and others. Mr. Deb submits that petitioners have not yet been served with the termination orders, and as such, petitioners are quite ignorant about these termination orders. However, petitioners learnt that the respondents were making prepa­ration to terminate services of the petitioners. Apprehending such termination, the petitioners have filed this writ petition in this Court for restraining the respondents from terminating the service of the petitioners However, after hearing of the case was over on 1.9.1993,1 passed the following interim order: "Respondent No. 3 is directed not to implement the impugned order of termination in respect of the petitioners and allow them to continue in their employment as before. If the termination order is served upon any of the petitioners in the meantime, the respondent No. 3 is further directed to restore status quo ante in respect of such petitioners, until the final order is passed in respect of the petitioners in this case." 11. Mr. UB Saha, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that after terminating the services of the petitioners, respondents will go for selection of suitable candidates for appointment to the post of school mothers. The petitioners are at liberty to apply for their selection for appointment to the said posts. According to him, the petitioners were appointed in gross violation of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as equality in the matter of selection and appointment was not at all followed while appointing the petitioners in the post of school mother. 12. Petitioners are working in the said posts since early part of January, 1993. They have filed the writ petition on 30.8.1993 in this Court. Though their services are being utilised continuously for last 8/9 months, not a furthing has been paid to them by way of their salary. This is clearly a cruel and inhuman behaviour on the part of the respondents towards the petitioners. They were given a meager salary of Rs. 500/- only (fixed) though the services they are rendering are equal in all respect to those school mothers who are/ were appointed on regular basis. It is not expected that State authorities can act in such an unusually cruel and inhuman manner towards the petitioners. But the petitioners were appointed in a petty past like that of school mother (Group D Class IV). They were denied the pay scale of regularly appointed persons in such posts. They were allowed a consolidated pay of Rs.500/- only per month and yet not a furthing has been paid to them till now since their initial appointment. I do not know what is the mode/standard of judging the merits of persons seeking selection for appointment in such posts. Surely no written examination is conducted for such selection/appointment. Atleast in Tripura, I am yet to come across any such written test for appointment of Group D of Class IV posts and surely I can take judicial notice of this fact. 13. Surely no written examination is conducted for such selection/appointment. Atleast in Tripura, I am yet to come across any such written test for appointment of Group D of Class IV posts and surely I can take judicial notice of this fact. 13. I shall first deal with the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale prescribed for regularly appointed school mothers/ Group D Class IV employees under the respondents on the ground of equal pay for equal work In Tripura there are in all 120 > Social Education Centres. Functions of these centres are mainly to hold pre-primary classes in morning for the children of the age group 3-6 years and also adult literacy classes in the evening. Education of children belonging to the age group 3-6 years is an important aspect of children development. These centres are managed by Social Education Workers. Each centre is manned by one such Social Educa­tion Worker. For facilitating small children to attend the classes and to pick up the children from house to house and bring them to these Balwadi classes, school mothers play an important role. These school mothers also help the small children to reach their houses after the classes are over. They also render valuable services during the class time to Baiwadi teachers, ie Social Education Workers in the management of classes. School mothers also take emotional care of the children standing in the classes. Some years ago a new dimension has been added to the responsibility and duty of school mothers inasmuch as they are to help in preparing/cooking foods and serving such foods to the children since 'Balahar programme' in the form of Khichuri to the Balwad. children was introduced in every Social Education Centre. Each such centre is supposed to be provided with one school mother for perfor­ming the aforesaid duties. Out of 1204 Social Education Centre only 67 should be provided with regularly appointed school mother. Therefore, remaining 529 Social Education Centres could not be provided with school mother although provision of school mother in each of these centres is essentially necessary for the aforesaid purposes. It further appears from the aforesaid two files that a proposal was made for creation of 2CO posts of such school mothers on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- per month (fixed) during the financial year 1988-89. It further appears from the aforesaid two files that a proposal was made for creation of 2CO posts of such school mothers on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- per month (fixed) during the financial year 1988-89. Accordingly, Government of Tripura vide Memo dated 14.12.89 created 200 posts of school mothers on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- per month (fixed). All these posts were plan posts. Ultimately, all these 200 posts were transferred to non plan expenditure as committed liability by Memorandum dated 18.6.1990. I have gone through the relevant files of the respondents From, the aforesaid facts and figures and from various records/note sheets of the aforesaid two files, I am satisfied that duties and functions of school mother on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- per month are exactly identical with those of the school mothers appointed on regular basis. Their responsibilities/functions/duties are exactly similar and yet one group is appointed on regular basis and, as such, they were given regular pay scale whereas the same pay scale is denied to the another group who are appointed on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- (fixed) per month, though both group of the school mothers are discharging exactly identical duties/responsibilities/ functions. It further appears from the relevant notes that there is a permanent need for school mothers in each and every Social Education Centre. 14. Again the Government of Tripura by Memo dated 23.10.1992 created another 200 posts of school mother on consolidated pay of Rs.500/- (fixed) per month. It further appears from the relevant note sheets of the relevant files that these posts were created under the condition that these 200 posts will be transferred to non plan expenditure from 19->2-93 onwards as com­mitted liability. The petitioners were appointed against some of these posts some time in January 1993. 15. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners are discharging the same responsibilities/duties/ functions as those of other school mothers who are appointed on regular basis. These posts are Group D Class IV posts. It further appears from these files that there is no recruitment rule for the posts of school mother whether on regular basis or on temporary basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/-(fixed). Also no educational qualification is prescribed for these posts. 16. These posts are Group D Class IV posts. It further appears from these files that there is no recruitment rule for the posts of school mother whether on regular basis or on temporary basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/-(fixed). Also no educational qualification is prescribed for these posts. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, claim of the petitioners for regular pay scale has to be decided. In Randhir Singh vs. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 , it has been observed : "It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39 (d) of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both man and women' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court, have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the Jaw or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opport­unity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences of permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the takeover of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other question of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at ail that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them •• Construing Aiticles 14 and 16 of the Consti­tution in the light of the Preamble and Article 39 (d), we are of the view that the principle 'equal pay for equal work' the deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases 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." 17. In the case of Dhirendra Chamoli vs. State of UP, (1986) 1 SCC 637 the claim for equal pay for equal work arose for consideration on the com­plaint of persons who were engaged by the Nehru Yuvak Kendra as casual workers on daily wage basis. While dealing with the problem. Supreme Court took note of the fact that casual employment was being continued for too long a period and directed : "the Central Government to accord to these persons who are employed by the Nehru Yuvak Kendras and who are concededly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, the same salary and conditions of service as are being received by Class IV employees except regularisation which cannot be done since there are no sanctioned posts. But we hope and trust that posts will be sanctioned by the Central Government in the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras so that these persons can be regularised. It is not at all desirable that any management and particularly the Central Government should continue to employ persons on casual basis in organisations which have been in existence for over 12 years." 18. Both these aspects, namely, 'equal pay for equal work'and contin­uing casual employment for too long came for consideration in another case before the Supreme Court in Surinder SinjL.li vs. Engineer-in-Cbief, CPWD, (1986) 1 SCC 639 . In that case petitioners who were employed by the Central Public Works Department on a daily wage basis and who have been so working for several years demanded that they should be paid the same wages as permanent employees employed to do identical work. In that case petitioners who were employed by the Central Public Works Department on a daily wage basis and who have been so working for several years demanded that they should be paid the same wages as permanent employees employed to do identical work. Their further case was that even if it was not possible to employ them on regular and permanent basis for want of suitable number of posts, there is no reason whatsoever why they should be denied 'equal pay for equal work'. In that case of Surinder Singh (supra), Supreme Court ultimately held as follows : "One would have thought that the judgment in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case concluded further argument on the question. However, Sri VC Mahajan, learned counsel for the Central Government reiterated the same argument and also contended that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' was a mere abstract doctrine and that it was not capable of being enforced in a Court of law. He referred us to the observations of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi vs. Union of India. We are not a little surprised that such an argument should be advanced on behalf of the Central Government 36 years after the passing of the Constitution and 11 years after the Forty-second Amendment proclaiming India as a socialist republic. The Central Government like all organs of the State is committed to the Directive Principles of State Policy and Article 39 enshrines the principle of equal pay for equal work. In Randhir Singh vs. Union of India, this Court has occasion to explain the observations in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi vs. Union of India and to point out how the principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and how it is a vital and vigorous doctrine accepted throughout the world, parti­cularly by all socialist countries. For the benefit of those who do not seem to be aware of it, we may point out that the decision in Randhir Singh case has been followed in any number of cases by this Court and has been affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in DS Nakara vs. Union of India. For the benefit of those who do not seem to be aware of it, we may point out that the decision in Randhir Singh case has been followed in any number of cases by this Court and has been affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in DS Nakara vs. Union of India. The Central Government, the State Government and likewise, all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments such as those which were advanced before us that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a Court of law should ill come from the mouths of the State and the State undertakings..." 19. Therefore, time and again Supreme Court expressed that the Govern­ment should behave and function like model and enlightened employers. Here is a tipical case where I find that the respondents have miserably failed to function and behave like model and enlightened employers. The respondents are practically exploiting the poor petitioners taking advantage of their disadvantaged conditions. 20. Again in Joypal ts. State of Haryana, (1988) 3 SCC 354 , Supreme Court while dealing with the similar problem observed : "There is no doubt that instructors and squad teachers are employees of the same employer doing work of similar nature in the same department therefore the appointment on a temporary basis or on regular basis does not affect the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, Article 39 (d) con­tained in Part IV of the Constitution ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both man and women. Though Article 39 is included in the chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, but it is fundamental in nature. The purpose of the Article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. Union of India, Dhirendra Chamoli vs. State of UP and Surinder Singh vs. engineer-in-Chief, CPWD. In view of these authorities it is too Late in the day to disregard the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of the employment being temporary and the other being permanent in nature. In view of these authorities it is too Late in the day to disregard the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of the employment being temporary and the other being permanent in nature. A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a permanent employee." 21. Again in the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department vs. Union of India, (1988) I SCC 122, Supreme Court indicated : " 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 employess doing the same type of work. Clause (2) of Article 38 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 residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations." Even though the above directive principle may not be enforceable as such by virtus of Article 37 of the Constitution of India, it may be relied upon by the petitioners to show that in the instant case they have been subjected to hostile discrimination. It is urged that the State cannot deny at least the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen even though Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees. WJ are of the view that such denial amounts to exploitation of labour. The Government cannot take advantage of its dominant position, and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starvation wages. It may be that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages. That he has done because he has no other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that state. The Government should be a model employer. It may be that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages. That he has done because he has no other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that state. The Government should be a model employer. We are of the view that on 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 rungs of the department where the pay scales are the lowest is not tenable ... India is a socialist republic. It implies the existence of certain impor­tant obligations which the State has to discharge. The right to work, the right to free choice of employment, the right to just and favourable conditions of work, the right to protection against unemployment, the right of everyone who works to just and favourable remuneration ensuring a decent living for himself and his family, the right of everyone without discrimination of any kind to equal pay for equal work, the right to rest, leisure, reasonable limitation on working hours and periodic holidays with pay, the right to form trade unions and the right to joint trade unions of one's choice and the right to security of work are some of the rights which have to be ensured by appropriate legislative and executive measures. It is true that all these rights cannot be extended simultaneously But they do indicate the socialist goal. The degree of achievement in this. direction depends upon the economic resources, willingness of the people to produce and more than all the existence of industrial peace throughout the country. Of those rights the question of security of work is of utmost importance. If a person does not have the feeling that he belongs to an organisation engaged in production he will not put forward his best effort to produce more. That sense of belonging arises only when he feels that he will not be turned out of employment the next day at the whim of the management. If a person does not have the feeling that he belongs to an organisation engaged in production he will not put forward his best effort to produce more. That sense of belonging arises only when he feels that he will not be turned out of employment the next day at the whim of the management. It is for this reason it is being repeatedly observed by those who are in charge of economic affairs of the countries in different parts of the world that as far as possible security of work should be assured to the employees so that they may contribute to the maximisation of production. It is again for this reason that managements and the Governmental agen­cies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for an unreasonably long period of time." 22. From the above it is apparent that the Government/respondents cannot take advantage of its dominant position, and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starvation wages. It may be that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages. That he has done because he has no other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that state. The Government should be a model employer. Socialism being the goal of our Constitution since Forty-second Amendments, such discrimination/exploi­tation has to be condemned. In the instant case the respondents have denied even that meager/starvation wage to the petitions for so many months. It is true that in the termination order produced before the Court by the learned Government Advocate a direction lias been issued to the concerned Inspect­ors of Social Welfare and Social Education of different Blocks/Sub Divisions/ District Head quarters to pay all dues of pay and allowances to the petitioners along with advance pay of one month. I do not know whether this direction was implemented. After serving for 8 months since their initial appointment their services are being proposed to be terminated though they were not paid even a furthing or that starvation/meager wage of Rs. 500/- till now. Such a behaviour is absolutely cruel and inhuman. I do not know whether this direction was implemented. After serving for 8 months since their initial appointment their services are being proposed to be terminated though they were not paid even a furthing or that starvation/meager wage of Rs. 500/- till now. Such a behaviour is absolutely cruel and inhuman. A Government which is supposed to strive for achieving the Constitutional goal of socialism as incorporated in the Preamble of the Constitution after its Forty-second Amendment is not expected to behave in that manner and it is certainly not the behaviour/ conduct of a model employer or Socialist Republic. 23. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, of the Supreme Court in the case of UP Income Tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association vs. Union of India, (1987) Supp SCC 658, indicated with emphasis as follows : " We accordingly allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to pay wages to the workmen who are employed as the contingent paid staff of the Income Tax Department throughout India. doing the work of Class IV employees at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scale of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres..." 24. Then came the case of State of UP vs. JP Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121 , wherein Supreme Court reiterated that i "Equal pay for equal work for both men and women has been accepted as a 'Constitutional goal' capable of being achieved through Constituti­onal remedies." 25. Aforesaid case laws have been referred to in this judgment to emphasise the point that equal pay for equal work and providing security for service by regularising casual/ad hoc/temporary employment etc. within a reasonable period of time have been unanimously accepted by the Supreme Court as Constitutional goal of our socialistic polity. 26. The Supreme Court in Jacob M Puthuparambil vs. Kerala Water Authority, (1991) 1 SCC 28 observed that : "Question of regularisation in service must be examined keeping in mind the historical as well as1 the constitutional perspectives. During the colonial rule industrial growth in the country was tardy and most of the large-sized industries were controlled by British interests. This establishments employed Indian labour on wages far below the susten­ance levels. Because of large scale unemployment there was a surplus labour market which the employers could and did exploit. During the colonial rule industrial growth in the country was tardy and most of the large-sized industries were controlled by British interests. This establishments employed Indian labour on wages far below the susten­ance levels. Because of large scale unemployment there was a surplus labour market which the employers could and did exploit. This virtually forced the labour to accept employment on terms unilaterally dictated by the employers. The relationship between the employee and employer being purely contractual, the hire and fire rule governed. Those were the days of laissez faire when contractual rights were placed above human rights. The concepts of dignity of labour and fair remuneration for work done were wholly alien. The workers had to work in appeall-ing conditions and at low wages with no job security." 27. Supreme Court further observed in Jacob's case (supra) that : "After we attained independence the pace of industrial growth accelerated. Our Constitutional makers were aware of the hardships and insecurity faced by the working classes. The Preamble of our Constitution oblieat.es the State to secure to all its citizens social and economic justice, beside-s political justice. By the Forty-second Amendment, the Preamble of the Constitution was amended to say that ours will be a socialistic democr­acy. In furtherance of these promises certain fundamental lights were engrafted in Part III of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees 'quality', abhors discrimination, prohibits and penalises forced labour in any form whatsoever and extends protection against exploitation of labour. After extending these guarantees, amongst others, the Constitu­tion makers proceeded to chart out the course for the governance of the country in part IV of the Constitution entitled with 'Directive Principles ot State Policy'. These principles reflect the hopes and aspirations of the people. Although the provisions of this part are not enforceable by any Court, the principles laid down therein are n ever the less fundamental in the governance of the country and the State in under an obligation to apply them in making laws. The principles laid down therein, therefore, define the objectives and goals which the State must endeavor to achieve over a period of time. Therefore, whenever the State is required to make laws it must do so consistently with these principles with a view to securing social and economic freedom so essential for the establishment of an egalitarian society. The principles laid down therein, therefore, define the objectives and goals which the State must endeavor to achieve over a period of time. Therefore, whenever the State is required to make laws it must do so consistently with these principles with a view to securing social and economic freedom so essential for the establishment of an egalitarian society. This part, therefore, mandates that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by minimising the inequalities in income and eliminating inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities; by directing its policy towards securing, amongst others, the distribution of the material resources of the community to sub serve the common good; by so operating the economic system as not to result in concentration of wealth: and by making effective provision for securing the right to work as also to public assistance in cases of unemployment, albeit within the limits of its economic capacities. There are certain other provisions which enjoin on the State certain duties, eg securing to all workers work, a living wage, just and human conditions of work, a decent standard of life, participation in management etc. which are aimed at improving the lot of the working classes. Thus the Preamble promises socio-economic justice, fundamental rights confer certain justifiable socio- economic rights and the Directive Principles fix the socio economic goals which the State must strive to attain." 28. Supreme Court also observed in that case that: ''India being a developing country has a vast surplus labour market Therefore large scale unemployment offers a matching opportunity to the employer to exploit the needy. In such circumstances and market condi­tions the employer can dictate his terms of employment taking advantage of the absence of the bargaining power in the other. Such terms of employment offer no job security and the employee is left to the mercy of the employer. Employers have betrayed an increasing tendency to employ temporary hands even on regular and permanent job with a view to circumventing the protection offered to the working classes under the benevolent legislations enacted from time to time. One such device is to get the work done through contract labour, fixed by temporary emplo­yees. Apex Court, accordingly, observed that it is in this backdrop that Court must consider the request for regularisation in service or the claim for equal pay for equal work." 29. One such device is to get the work done through contract labour, fixed by temporary emplo­yees. Apex Court, accordingly, observed that it is in this backdrop that Court must consider the request for regularisation in service or the claim for equal pay for equal work." 29. Again in Dharwad PWD Employees Association vs. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396 Supreme Court observed that the question that arises in these matters is indeed not one that has been left wholly to the realm of interpretation and to be described as judge-made law. Parliament has stepped in as early as 1976 by enacting the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. The Act is a legislation providing equality of pay for equal work between men and women which certainly is a part of the principle which was under consideration in that case. 30. Therefore, from the above noted large number of decisions and many other such cases decided by the Supreme Court, clear constitutional picture emerges is that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it take advantage of helplessness of either the unemployed persons or the employees as the case may be. It is the constitutional obligation of the State to act like a model employer. Therefore, none can ignore the preamble of the Constitu­tion, equality clauses as enshrined in the Article 14 and 16 and the Directive Principles of the State Policy merely because the petitioners accepted most illegal and unconstitutional terms and conditions as stipulated in the offer of appointment/appointment orders. They accepted such arbitrary terms and conditions because they lacked appropriate bargaining power due to their poverty and other such reasons. 31. In the case in hand petitioners were appointed in the posts of school mother (Group D Class IV) on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- (fixed) per month in January, 1993. So, they were denied the scale of regularly appointed school mothers or other Group D Class IV employees. Even that meager starvation wage has not been paid to the petitioners for the last 8/9 months since they joined the said posts. Their services are being utilised like any other regularly appointed school mothers. It has already been mentioned above in this judgment as to how the petitioners are performing and dischar­ging the same duties/responsibilities/functions as regularly appointed school mothers are supposed to do. Their services are being utilised like any other regularly appointed school mothers. It has already been mentioned above in this judgment as to how the petitioners are performing and dischar­ging the same duties/responsibilities/functions as regularly appointed school mothers are supposed to do. It may be mentioned here that regular appointed Group D Class IV employees are the most in paid regularly appointed emplo­yees under the Govt. of Tripura. Therefore, this is a clear case of discrimination in the matter of pay scale. Merely because the petitioners have accepted most unreasonable and arbitrary terms and conditions stipulated in the after of appointment as regards pay scale, same cannot be allowed to be continued. In these circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the petitioners and similarly situated others are entitled to the salaries and allowances at the rate at which other regularly appointed school mothers/Group D Class IV employees are entitled. However, as regards back wages/arrears of salary, I do not like to issue any directions except that arrears of salary at the rate of Rs, 500/- per month shall be cleared within a period of 15 days from today. However, they shall be entitled to pay scale of regularly appointed school mothers from the month of November, 1993. 32. In this respect I may further refer to Niadar ts. Delhi Administration, (1992) 4 SCC 112 . In this case Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the claim of casual labourers working on daily wage basis in the Soil Conservation Department, Agricultural Section, Delhi Administration for payment of regular pay scale and also for their regularisation in service. They worked for about one year or so as casual labourers on daily wage basis. Supreme Court in the above noted case directed Delhi Administration to prepare a scheme for absorbing as regular employees the casual labourers working for one year or more in the department within six months and to absorb them on regular basis those found fit. Supreme Court further directed to pay :he aforesaid casual labourers with effect from 1.10.1988 wages equivalent to the minimum salary payable to employee in comparable posts. Similar directions were also issued by the Supreme Court in Vijoy Pal Sharma vs. Delhi Administration, (1992) 114 SCC 4. Supreme Court further directed to pay :he aforesaid casual labourers with effect from 1.10.1988 wages equivalent to the minimum salary payable to employee in comparable posts. Similar directions were also issued by the Supreme Court in Vijoy Pal Sharma vs. Delhi Administration, (1992) 114 SCC 4. Against the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Vijoy Pal Sharma's case a review petition was filed by the Delhi Administration and the said review application was also turned down by the Supreme Court. The order of the Supreme Court rejecting the aforesaid review application has been reported in (1992) 4 SCC 115. 33. Similarly in Om Prakash Singh and others vs. Union of India, (1993) Supp (1) SCC 526. the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with a case of 5 Junior Engineers in a project placed under the control of the Executive Officer, City Board, Ghaziabad. In that case the aforesaid Junior Engineers were employed on daily rate basis and on an average pay of Rs.1,000/- per month. In that case fact is that no payment was made to these Junior Engineers for holidays and they were not entitled to any other benefit for the work done. Whereas Junior Engineers who were appointed on regular basis were paid a minimum of Rs. 1,40Q/- per month while the daily rated ones, though similarly qualified and doing the same work were paid on an average Rs. l.000/- per month. In these circumstances, Supreme Court observed that it amounted to discrimination and was unjustified. Accordingly, the authorities were directed to enhance pay of such daily rate Junior Engineers to Rs. 1.400/-. Again in Rajesh Kumar Soni vs. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Wild Life, (1992) 4 SCC 116 , it was observed that the petitioners in that case were employed as daily rated workers on half of the wages of regular employees and were continuing on such pay for 4/5 years. In these circumstances, Supreme Court presumed that there is regular need of their employment and accordingly, directed the authorities to absorb the petitioners as well as similarly situated other employees senior to them, if any, on regular basis within 3 months. In the present case in hand before me no such presumption for regular need of the posts is necessary Inasmuch at it clearly emerges from the aforesaid two files that there is in fact such regular need. In the present case in hand before me no such presumption for regular need of the posts is necessary Inasmuch at it clearly emerges from the aforesaid two files that there is in fact such regular need. In course of hearing learned Govt. Advocate also submitted that regular appointment shall be made after exhausting selection process. 34. In State of Madhya Pradesh ts. Pramod Bhartiya, AIR 1993 SC 286 , Supreme Court observed that 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), 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 Principles of State Policy is not enforceable in a Court of Law is to indulge in sophistry. Parts III and IV of the Constitution are not supposed to be exclusionary of each other. They are complementary to 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 equality 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 Article 14 and 16 (1) come into play wherever complaint of infraction of that rule falls for consideration. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the definition of the expressions 'same work or work of similar nature' contained in clause (h) of section 2 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, enacted by Parliament to Implement Article 39 (d) of the Constitution and the obligation created by the convention concerning equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value to which India is a signatory. It would be evident from that definition that the stress is upon the similarity of skill, effort and responsibility when performed under similar conditions. Further, the quality of work may vary from post to post. It may vary from institution to institution. This reality cannot be ignored or overlooked. It is not a matter of assumption but one of proof. It would be evident from that definition that the stress is upon the similarity of skill, effort and responsibility when performed under similar conditions. Further, the quality of work may vary from post to post. It may vary from institution to institution. This reality cannot be ignored or overlooked. It is not a matter of assumption but one of proof. Since the plea of equal pay for equal work has to be examined with reference to Article 14 the burden is upon the persons complaining of discrimination to establish their right to equal pay, or the plea of discrimination, as the case may be. However, in the instant case I am satisfied on perusal of the aforesaid two files that plea of equal pay for equal work is not baseless and in fact has been established and I have already dealt with this aspect in this judgment. 35. Therefore, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case and other circumstances appearing in the aforesaid two files, I am satisfied that as regards the remuneration, the petitioners are entitled to the same pay scale which is admissible to regularly appointed school mothers or other Group D Class IV employees of the respondents. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to give the petitioner the aforesaid scale from November, 1993 onwards. As regards arrears of salary, I direct the respondents to pay the petitioners whatever is due to them Rs.500/- per month since they had joined the post in January, 1993. 36. Next question to be decided is whether termination order should be quashed and direction for regularisation of services of the petitioners should be issued. It needs to be mentioned here that apprehending termination, petitio­ners filed this writ petition for restraining respondents from terminating their services. They filed the petition before termination order could be served upon them. In fact during hearing of the case, learned Government Advocate produced the termination orders before the Court. So the petitioners could not make any such direct prayer in the writ petition for quashing the termination order. However, as the case was finally heard at motion stage, petitioners also could not make any such prayer for amendment of the petition for adding a new prayer in the writ petition for quashing the termination order. So the petitioners could not make any such direct prayer in the writ petition for quashing the termination order. However, as the case was finally heard at motion stage, petitioners also could not make any such prayer for amendment of the petition for adding a new prayer in the writ petition for quashing the termination order. Of course, prayers have been made in the writ petition for regularisation of their services and for restraining the respondents from terminating their services. But as this Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has the power to mould relief to meet the requirements of the case, the learned counsel for the parties were heard at length on the question whether the termination order could be set aside. 37. Learned Government Advocate resists the claim for regularisatiop firstly on the ground of terms and conditions stipulated in the offer of appo­intment and the petitioners having joined the said posts alter accepting the said terms and conditions. Second ground for resisting such claim of the petitioners is that in the matter of appointment of the petitioners requirement of Article 16 were not complied with. Their names were not sponsored by Employment Exchange. No advertisement was even issued in respect of such recruitments. Respondents will very soon go for selection of suitable candidates for such recruitments in compliance with requirements of Article 16. 38. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the learned Government Advocate, it is clear that there is regular need for such posts. That apart from the aforesaid two files, it appears that the department has been insisting for more posts of 'school mothers' to provide each of the 1204 Social Education Centres with at least one 'school mothers'. Many such centres are yet to be provided with school mothers. Therefore, permanent need for such school mothers is not in dispute. Regular posts of school mothers are Group D Class IV posts. These posts are most ill paid regular posts under the respondents. No qualification has been prescribed for such posts. Therefore, merit of the candidates is not of much importance to be ascertained in course of the so-called selection of suitable candidates. For recruitment in such ill-paid posts, merit of the candidates is not going to be ascertained through written test or oral interview or otherwise. What is material is whether they are otherwise ineligible. Therefore, merit of the candidates is not of much importance to be ascertained in course of the so-called selection of suitable candidates. For recruitment in such ill-paid posts, merit of the candidates is not going to be ascertained through written test or oral interview or otherwise. What is material is whether they are otherwise ineligible. It further appears from File No. 3 (3}-DSWE/ESTT/88 (Loose) of the Directorate of Social Welfare and Social Education that large number of such persons numbering about 165 were appointed as school mothers on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- (fixed) per month under exactly similar terms and conditions soon after 200 such posts were created by Memorandum dated 14.12.89. They are still continuing in the said posts. It is therefore not understood as to why cases of the present petitioners have been singled out for termination. It further appears from the aforesaid files that from 1989 to 1992 large number of women were appointed in the post of school mothers under exactly identical terms and conditions without going through the process of selection or without following the procedure as required under Article 16 or without their names being sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. They were so appointed merely because some powerful people wanted them to be so appointed from time to time. They are still continuing in the said posts. Their services have not been terminated. Therefore, it is not understood as to why the present petitioners are being singled out for termination merely on the ground that in their appointment selection process was not gone through or then names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchanges or because the terms and conditions stipulated in the offer of appointment empowered the respondents to issue such termi­nation in respect of the petitioners. It, therefore, appears that respondents have adopted double standard in this matter without any justification whatsoever. More over since their initial appointment in the month of January, 1993, petitioners have not been paid even a single furthing so far towards their salaries @ Rs. 500/- (fixed) per month. It, therefore, appears that respondents have adopted double standard in this matter without any justification whatsoever. More over since their initial appointment in the month of January, 1993, petitioners have not been paid even a single furthing so far towards their salaries @ Rs. 500/- (fixed) per month. Taking all these circumstances into consideration and in view of the fact that the petitioners have suffered immense injustice at the hands of the respondents and also in view of what has been laid down by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions, referred to above, I am of the view that services of the petitioners cannot be terminated ?n this manner. In this respect I may further refer to Niadar vs. Delhi Administration, (1992) 4 SCC 112 ; State of Haryana ts. Pira Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 ; Rattanlal vs. Lt Governor, (1992) 4 SCC 117 ; Vijay Pal Sharma vs. Delhi Administration, (1992) 4 SCC 114 ; Rajesh Kumar Soni vs. Ministry of Environment, (1992) 4 SCC 116 ; Jacob M. Puthuparambil vs. Kerala Water Authority, (1991) 1 SCC 28 and series of other such decisions to show that under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is permanent/regular need of such posts, the services of the petitioners cannot be terminated in this manner. 39. In these circumstances, I am left with no alternative but to allow the petition and, accordingly, I direct the respondents to clear the arrears of salaries of the petitioners and similarly situated other @ Rs.500/- per month since they joined the said posts within a period of 15 days from today and to pay them minimum of salaries and allowances payable to similar other regularly appointed school mothers/Group D Class IV employees from the month of November, 1993.I set aside the termination orders in respect of the petitioners and direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in the said posts until regularisation of their services. Their services shall be regularised as and when such regular posts/vacancies are created/occur. They may be regularised in the post of school mothers or any other Group D Class IV posts. Their services shall be regularised as and when such regular posts/vacancies are created/occur. They may be regularised in the post of school mothers or any other Group D Class IV posts. Respondents are restrained from making any fresh appointment/ recruitment cither in the post of school mother or in the Group D Class IV posts under the Directorate of Social Welfare and Social Education until the services of the petitioners and those who are similarly situate like petitioners are regulariied as aforesaid. Till regularisation of their services, they shall be entitled to salaries and allowances as already directed from the month of November, 1993. In the result, the petition is allowed. No costs.