JUDGMENT : R.B. MEHROTRA, J. 1. The Petitioner was basically appointed on 1st of February, 1985 on the post of Tax Recorder at the pay of Rs. 360/- per month in the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam in the office of Executive Engineer, VII Construction Division, Allahabad. Petitioner's services were arbitrarily terminated on 1st of May, 1986, consequent thereto the Petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal, vide its award, dated 11.3.1988 set aside the order of termination passed against the Petitioner, dated 1.5.1986 and directed that the Petitioner's services should be treated as continuous and Petitioner should be reinstated in service with all back wages. 2. Petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 32193 of 1992 for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to regularise the services of the Petitioner on the post of Hindi/English typist and also for a direction to the Respondents to pay the Petitioner's salary with all back wages as is being paid to regular employees of the said post. 3. Petitioner's main contention in this petition is that right from the date the Petitioner was appointed as Tax Recorder in the office of the Executive Engineer, VII Construction Division, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, he has been posted as Hindi/English typist and the Respondents have taken work from the Petitioner regularly of the post of Hindi/English typist in the office of Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner also claimed that he is duly qualified for the appointment on the post of typist-cum-clerk and was competent to be appointed on the said post. In support of his contention, the Petitioner has mainly relied upon a certificate issued by the Executive Engineer on 6th of July, 1992 wherein the Executive Engineer, VII Construction Division, Jal Nigam, Allahabad has certified that the Petitioner is doing the work of Hindi/English typist from 1st of February, 1985. It has also been contended in the writ petition that there are large number of vacancies in the office of the Respondents for the post of the typist-cum-clerk and since the Petitioner has been working right from the date of his appointment as typist-cum-clerk, the Petitioner's services need be regularised on the post of the typist-cum-clerk on which the Petitioner had been working. The Petitioner has also made a grievance that he has been discriminated in the matter of employment as the Petitioner is being paid wages on daily wage basis at the minimum rate right from the date of appointment whereas the Petitioner is entitled to get the payment like a regular employee with back wages and all the increments as have been given to other regular employees but the same is being denied to the Petitioner. 4. A counter .affidavit has been filed in the case by Respondent No. 3, namely, the Executive Engineer, VII Construction Division, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Allahabad himself. In the counter, affidavit, it has been vehemently denied that the Petitioner was posted as Hindi/English typist in the office of Respondent No. 3. It has been contended in the counter affidavit, that the Petitioner in his application before the Industrial Tribunal challenging his termination order, had described himself to have been appointed on the post of Tax Recorder. It is wrong to allege that the Petitioner was ever posted as typist-cum-clerk. It has also been denied in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner had continuously worked on the post of Hindi/English typist in the office of respondent no. 3. It has been contended that the certificate, dated 6.7.1992 which the Petitioner has filed as Annexure 2' to the writ petition, issued by the deponent himself was obtained by the Petitioner by misleading and misrepresenting the deponent. It has been contended that the Petitioner represented to Respondent No. 3, that he is likely to get a regular employment in other office as typist-cum-clerk and for that purpose he requires a testimonial pertaining to experience. On this representation, the said certificate was issued. It has got nothing to do with actual working of the Petitioner as Hindi/English typist in the office of Respondent No. 3. It has also been denied in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner is working as typist-cum-clerk at par with the employees of the regular establishment. It has also been denied that the work of typist-cum-clerk has mostly been taken from the Petitioner. 5. It has also been denied in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner is working as typist-cum-clerk at par with the employees of the regular establishment. It has also been denied that the work of typist-cum-clerk has mostly been taken from the Petitioner. 5. In the counter, affidavit it has also been contended that the Petitioner is daily wage muster roll employee and as such is being paid like daily wage muster roll employee and he is not entitled for any other service benefits like regular employees unless the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam decides the shift him in the regular employment by framing a policy in this regard with the previous approval of the State Government. It has been contended that since the Petitioner is not an employee of a regular establishment, as such is not possible to grant him the benefits of service which a regular employee is enjoying. 6. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, by an order, dated 12.11.1992, the Executive Engineer, VII Construction Division, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Allahabad transferred the Petitioner from Allahabad to Manda a township of the district of Allahabad in Village Group Drinking Water Project on the post of Tax Recorder with a direction that since there is no post of Tax Collector in Manda, the Petitioner will also look after the work of collection of tax and of maintaining the records. The Petitioner filed the second writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43390 of 1992 challenging the aforesaid transfer order on the ground that the aforesaid transfer order is mala-fide in nature and has been passed in retaliation to the Petitioner's filing of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32193 of 1992 claiming regularization on the post of Hindi/English typist. It has also been contended that the said transfer order is effect an order reducing the Petitioner's status from the post of Tax Recorder to the post of Tax Collector. Petitioner's contention is that since the Petitioner was working as English/Hindi typist, the impugned order has actually reverted the Petitioner from the said post to the post of Tax Collector, which is a class IV post. 7. Petitioner's contention is that since the Petitioner was working as English/Hindi typist, the impugned order has actually reverted the Petitioner from the said post to the post of Tax Collector, which is a class IV post. 7. In reply to this writ petition, it has been contended in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner was posted as Tax, Recorder, which is generally known as Jal Kal Lipik and Petitioner has been transferred on the same post on which the Petitioner was working at Allahabad entrusting him with an additional work of collecting tax. It has been contended in the counter affidavit that as a matter of fact the post of tax recorder and tax collector and Jal Kal Lipik is the same in the Work Charge Establishment of the Jal Nigam bearing the same pay scale and similar work, as such the Petitioner has not been put to any pecuniary loss or reduced in rank on account of the aforesaid transfer. There is no classification like class III or class IV post in the Work Charge Establishment like regular establishment of other Departments of the Government. In the counter affidavit it has also been contended that the allegation that the Petitioner had been continuously permitted to work as typist-cum-clerk in the office of Respondent No. 3 is incorrect. Under the rules, the Petitioner was not entitled to be promoted on the post of typist-cum-clerk as the said post is on the regular establishment and a work charged employee cannot be accommodated on the regular establishment unless his services are regularised. 8. One of the grievances of the Petitioner challenging his order of transfer, dated 12.11.1992 is that the said order has been passed in violation of a Circular of the President of the Jal Nigam, dated 5.11.1992 providing that no transfer orders should be passed without prior approval of the President of the Jal Nigam. The Petitioner's contention is that the Petitioner's transfer order has been passed in violation of the aforesaid circular. This fact has been stated for the first time in the rejoinder affidavit. The Respondents had no opportunity to meet this allegation. 9. In view of these overlaping facts, both the aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment with the consent of the parties. 10. This fact has been stated for the first time in the rejoinder affidavit. The Respondents had no opportunity to meet this allegation. 9. In view of these overlaping facts, both the aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment with the consent of the parties. 10. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri D.S.P. Singh in support of the aforesaid writ petitions and Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 11. Two questions arise for consideration in the present matter. First is whether the Petitioner has been permitted to work as Hindi/English typist and is entitled to be absorbed on the said post on the basis that the Petitioner is qualified for the said post. Second question is whether the order dated 12.11.1992 passed against the Petitioner transferring him from Allahabad to Manda is in any way mala-fide or illegal on the ground that the Petitioner has been reduced in rank by the said order. 12. Sri D.S.P. Singh learned Counsel for the Petitioner has fairly conceded that answer to the second question involved for consideration in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43390 of 1992 challenging the order of transfer of the Petitioner from Allahabad to Manda will depend on the result of the answer to the first question. In support of his contention for the first proposition, Sri D.S.P. Singh has relied upon the cases of Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361 and Sri Rabinarayan Mohapartra vs. State of Orissa and Others, (1991) 2 SCC 599 . 13. In Bhagwati Prasad's case (supra), the matter was referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to Industrial Tribunal at Delhi to examine the contentions of the Petitioner and stand taken by the Respondents on all issues and submit a report. On the basis of the aforesaid direction, the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that all the Petitioners workmen are performing the same or similar duties as are performed by the incumbents of group 'D' post of D.S. M.D.C. consequently on the principles of equal pay for equal work as enshrined under Article 39 with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, all these workmen, the Petitioners, are entitled to equal pay for equal work in relation to the regular employees. On the basis of the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the findings of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal cannot be assailed. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the second question was regarding regularisation of the Petitioner's services and in the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "in our view three years' experience ignoring the artificial break in service for short periods created by the Respondents in the circumstances shall be sufficient for confirmation." 14. In Rabinarayan Mohapatra's case (supra), it was held that the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 3 of the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Act and was entitled to be regularised in terms of the provisions of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act. 15. Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, the learned Counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) State of Punjab and Others vs. Surinder Kumar and Others, (1992) 1 SCC 489 (ii) State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh, (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1353 (ii) Ram Khilawan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1992) 2 UPLBEC 892 16. In the case of State of Punjab (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that "a decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law. The Respondents are, therefore, not entitled to rely upon an order of this Court which directs a temporary employee to be regularised in his service without assigning reasons." 17. In the casp of Ram Khilawan (supra), a learned single Judge of this Court relying upon the aforesaid decision of State of Punjab and Others vs. Surinder Kumar and Others, held that regularisation depends on the relevant rules of service. Three years service automatically does not entitle an employee to regularisation. The decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad's case has been watered down in the case of State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar and Ors. 18. In the case of State of Haryana (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. 18. In the case of State of Haryana (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long speli-say two or three years - a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to 'adopt a positive approach coupled with a sympathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Government of Haryana (contained in its letter dated 6.4.1990 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to work-charged, employees as well as casual labour. 19. In the present case, so far as the Petitioner's claim for the post of Hindi/English typist is concerned, the statements made by the Petitioner have been controverted in the counter affidavit and the question of fact whether the Petitioner has actually worked as a Hindi/English typist from the date of his appointment cannot be decided in the, present writ petition. Merely on the basis that for sometime work of typist was taken from the Petitioner, he cannot claim promotion on the said post as a matter of right. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, the question whether the Petitioner has worked as Hindi/English typist and has thereby accrued any right for the said post can be adequately adjudicated in an industrial dispute which the Petitioner is free to raise in appropriate forum in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. In the present writ petition, the Petitioner cannot be granted a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to regularise the Petitioner on the post of Hindi/English typist and, pay salary for the said post. However, dismissal of this writ petition will have no effect on the merits of the dispute, if the Petitioner agitates the said dispute in an industrial or labour court. Consequently Civil Misc. However, dismissal of this writ petition will have no effect on the merits of the dispute, if the Petitioner agitates the said dispute in an industrial or labour court. Consequently Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32193 of 1992 fails. 20. Since the question whether the Petitioner was working as a Hindi/English typist will depend on the result of the adjudication of a dispute if the Petitioner decides to agitate the same, the order, dated 12.11.1992 transferring the Petitioner on the post of Tax Recorder with additional duty to do the work of the Tax Collector also at Manda cannot be held to be an order of reducing, the Petitioner in rank. The Petitioner is getting the same emoluments which the Petitioner was getting at Allahabad. The order of transfer are not normally interfered with by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise there is no basis for interfering with the aforesaid transfer order passed against the Petitioner in the circumstances of the present ease. If the said order of transfer has been passed in violation of any circular of the Department, it will be open to the Petitioner to make a representation against the impugned transfer order to the Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam who will decide the Petitioner's representation expeditiously by a reasoned order. 21. The Petitioner has not made any claim in the present writ petition for regularising his services on the post of the Tax Recorder on which post the Petitioner was appointed as far back as on 1.2.1985. Neither it is the grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition that the Petitioner is performing the duties of a clerk or a tax recorder which his counter part on the regular side are also performing but he is being discriminated in the matter of payment of wages. No such specific grievance has been made in the present writ petition. For this reason no relief has been sought by the peiitioner on the said count. In this view of the matter, no views are being expressed on the said matter. It is, however, being made clear that it is open to the Petitioner to agitate the said matter in appropriate forum, if the occasion so arises. For this reason no relief has been sought by the peiitioner on the said count. In this view of the matter, no views are being expressed on the said matter. It is, however, being made clear that it is open to the Petitioner to agitate the said matter in appropriate forum, if the occasion so arises. The Petitioner is free to make a representation for his regularisation and also for being paid the same wages which his counter parts on the regular side are getting. 22. Principles of "equal pay for equal work" has been enshrined in our Constitution in the Directive Principles. The Hon'ble Supreme Court have held in catena of decisions that principle of equal pay for equal work is implicit in the duotone of equality enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pramod Bhartiya, JT 1992 (5) 683. It is hoped that if the Petitioner makes any such claim or representation, before the concerned authority, for payment of same wages which the Petitioner's counter parts are getting on regular side, or for regularisation on the post of Tax Recorder the concerned authority will decide the Petitioner's representation in accordance with law. 23. With the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions i.e. Writ Petitions No. 32193 of 1992 and 43390 of 1992 are being disposed of on the ground that in the circumstances of the present case, the Petitioner has an alternative remedy of getting his grievance redressed by raising an industrial dispute in accordance with law. Parties will bear their own costs.