JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, by the order dated, April 24, 1983, was appointed as work-charged employee on daily wages of Rs. 9/-. The daily wages were increased from time-to-lime. He worked on work-charged basis for a period of two years and, therefore, he was made semi-permanent Helper with effect from April 1, 1985, and was placed in the minimum of the regular pay scale applicable to the semi-permanent Helper. The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was made semi-permanent Helper in the work-charged establishment and was given the minimum of the regular pay scale for the semipermanent status-holder Helper but actually the work of the post of the Lower Division Clerk was taken from the petitioner since the date of his initial appointment In the year 1990, a Circular dated August 16, 1990 was issued by the Additional Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Rajasthan, Jaipur, in which it was stated that 50% of the posts of the Lower Division Clerks may be filled-up from amongst such candidates who were working on work-charged basis on muster-roll basis and have completed two years of regular service on April 1, 1988, and possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk. It was further stated in the Circular that the names of such persons should be forwarded in the annexed Proforma. In pursuance to this Circularsm the petitioner's name was also forwarded but no action has been taken till today. On May 25, 1992, the order Annexure 5 was issued by which the petitioner was directed to hand-over the charge of maintenance of Ledger to one Shri Tara Chand-a daily wages employee-and the petitioner was ordered to be posed against Shri Tara Chand as the Helper in the Water-works. The petitioner has challenged the order Annexure 5, by which he was asked to hand-over the charge to Shri Tara Chand and to join his duties at the Waterworks, where Tara Chand was working. The petitioner has also prayed that as he is working on the post of L.D.C. since the date of his joining the department, therefore, his services on the post of Lower Division Clerk may be regularised from the date of his initial appointment and the respondents may be directed to make payment of salary to him of the post of L.D.C. since March 21, 1988. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition and stated in the reply that on the day when the petitioner was made semi-permanent on the post of Helper, he was not qualified to be appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk as he was non-matriculate. The respondents, in their reply, also, denied the fact of taking the work of the post of L.D.C. from the petitioner. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed as a Helper and the work of Helper was taken from him. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner, from the date of his initial appointment, worked on the post of L.D.C., therefore, he is entitled for the regularisation of his services on the post of L.D.C. and is also entitled for the payment of salary which is payable to a regularly appointed L.D.C., as per the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who worked on the post of L.D.C. and entitled for regularisation on this post, cannot be asked to handover the charge to a person who is a work-charged employee and also junior to the petitioner and he cannot be transferred to the Water-works. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the order Annexure 5 and has also submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation on the post of L.D.C. as he was not qualified to be appointed on the post of L.D.C. as the procedure has been prescribed in the relevant Service Rules for appointment on the post of L.D.C. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that no work of the post of L.D.C. was ever taken from the petitioner and throughout the service tenure, he worked as a Helper. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition involves a disputed question of facts which cannot be gone into and decided in the writ petition and for that the petitioner should seek the appropriate remedy before the competent Court for determination of his case. 3. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. 3. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Before considering the writ petition on merit, I would first like to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition involves a disputed question of facts. It is true that where the dispute involves a complicated question of facts then that question cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction and the matter should be decided by a competent Court by way of a civil suit or by the Industrial Tribunal by raising an industrial dispute as the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant for establishing the rights of the parties. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are to be exercised for enforcement of the rights and not for the establishment of the right. But if the question involved in the writ petition is not a complicated one and which can be decided on the basis of the facts alleged in the writ petition and the documents placed on record then the Court is not debarred from deciding the question of facts under writ jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, cannot be thrown-away on the ground that the controversy involved some disputed questions of facts. 5. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the date of his initial appointment, i.e., January 24, 1983, though appointed on the post of Helper but the petitioner worked on the post of L.D.C. upto May 25, 1992 the day he was transferred from Revenue Section to the Water-works and, therefore, he is entitled for the regular pay scale applicable to the post of the Lower Division Clerks. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over: Narendra Kumar Chandwar v. State of Rajasthan, (1972 (1) RLR 16 , Pancha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (2) RLR 18 , Narendra Kumar v. National Institution of Ayurveda 1989 (2) RLR 21 , The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the question of equal pay for equal work involves a disputed question of facts and the petitioner never worked on the post of L.D.C. and it has also not been borne-out from the materials on record that whether the petitioner discharged the same duties as are being discharged by the L.D.Cs. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the controversy requires examination of the evidence and as such it cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. In support of its case the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance over: Dharamveer Nair v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 WLR 14 . 6. The law is well settled on the point that if the work of the higher post is taken from a workman/employee though he is appointed on a lower post, then he is entitled for the minimum pay scale of that post on the basis of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. If the fact that the petitioner worked on the post of L.D.C. is proved from the documents placed on the record then the petitioner can be awarded the salary of the post of the Lower Division Clerk on the basis of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The controversy in the present case, so far as the grant of salary on the basis of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is concerned, does not involve a complicated question of facts and the controversy can be resolved on the basis of the documents placed on record. Annexure A-3 is the certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer, under whom the petitioner worked during the relevant period which shows that the petitioner, who was a work-charged employee, worked in the Revenue Section on the post of Helper since April 1, 1985 to February 1988. The work in the Revenue Section of the Office of the Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D. (City Division), Nagpur, in maintaining the Ledger, was taken from the petitioner. The work in the Revenue Section of the Office of the Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D. (City Division), Nagpur, in maintaining the Ledger, was taken from the petitioner. Annexures A-6 to Annexure A-10, Annexures A-18 to Annexure A-23 and Annexure A-33, which have been placed on record by the petitioner, clearly show that the petitioner worked in the Revenue Section for maintaining the Ledger, which work has been assigned to the Lower Division Clerk. These documents, thus, conclusively prove that the work of the post of Lower Division Clerk was taken from the employee who was appointed on the post of Helper petitioner with effect from April 1, 1985 to May 25, 1992, and, therefore, as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of: Kamal Singh v. the State of Rajasthan, (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3165 of 1987 decided on September 28, 1988 , the petitioner would have been entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of the post of Lower Division Clerk from the date of filing the writ petition, i..e, June 22, 1992, but there is no evidence to suggest that the petitioner worked on the post of Lower Division Clerk even after filing the writ petition and as such he is not entitled to the salary of the post of the Lower Division Clerk. 7. The next contention which requires consideration in the present case is: whether the petitioner is entitled for regularisation on the post of Lower Division Clerk? The case of the petitioner is that since the dale of his initial appointment the work of the post of L.D.C. was taken from the petitioner and, therefore, whether he fulfils the necessary qualification or not, at the time of initial appointment, is immaterial and he is entitled for regularisation of his services on the post of L.D.C. His further case is that though initially he was not qualified to be appointed as L.D.C. but he did his Matriculation in the year 1987 and, therefore, now, he is qualified to be appointed on the post of L.D.C. and, therefore, his services should be regularised on the post of L.D.C. since January 24, 1983. In support of its case the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over: Ram Kishan v. The Union of India, 1992 (Suppl 1 SCC 399 , N.S.K. Nayar v. The Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1574 , Karnataka State Private Colleges Stop-gap Lecturers Association v. The State of Karnataka, (1993-II-LLJ-831) , and Krishna Dutt Sharnta v. The Rajasthan State Agricultural Market Board, Kaipur 1990 WLN (UC) 287 , The petitioner, on January 24, 1983, when he joined the services on work-charged basis, was not qualified to be appointed on the post of L.D.C. He was appointed on work-charged basis on the post of Helper and he worked on that post and, therefore, he was made semi-permanent on that post. When he was made semi-permanent even on that day be was not holding the qualification requisite for appointment on the post of L.D.C. He did not face even the regular selection process. Merely because the work of the higher post was taken from the petitioner, will not make him entitled to be appointed on the higher post. Though the post of L.D.C. is not a promotional post but even for a moment if it is taken to be promotional post, the petitioner or any other candidate can be promoted on that post in accordance with the seniority and that too on the condition whether he fulfils the requirements for being promoted/appointed on the post of L.D.C. They can neither be promoted nor can be appointed on the post of L.D.C. out of turn merely because the work of the higher post was taken from them. If the work of the higher post was taken from the petitioner then he can be granted salary/wages for that post but he is not entitled for regularisation on the higher post. The judgments, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are the cases where the initial appointments were given to the candidates on the post on which they worked and those persons were qualified for being appointed on that post But in the present case the petitioner was given appointment net on the post of L.D.C. but on the post of Helper for which he was qualified and made semi-permanent on that post after rendering two years' service. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled for regularisation on the post of L.D.C. Even otherwise also the right of regularisation cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction as the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant for establishment of the rights but it is meant only for the enforcement of the rights. 8. In Ram Krishna v. The Union of India , (supra) the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers/Junior Engineers on daily wages and they worked for three to four years and, therefore their services were ordered to be regularised in view of the agreement arrived at between the parties. In N.S.K. Nayar's case (supra), the appointment to the petitioners were given on officiating basis to meet the administrative exigencies for short tenure and they continued in the service for many years and, therefore, they were directed to be regularised on those posts on which they were provided appointments. In Karnataka State Private Colleges Stop-gap Lecturers Association's case (supra), the teachers were temporarily appointed on ad hoc basis and they worked for sometime and, therefore, direction was issued to regularise their appointments. In K.D. Sharma's case (supra), the petitioner was appointed as work-charged employee and was treated as L.D.C. As the petitioner was treated as L.D.C since the date of his initial appointment and, therefore, the Court ordered for regularisation of his services on the post of L.D.C. In all these cases, the initial appointment, whether on work-charged basis or temporary basis, was made on the same post on which they were working and, therefore, their services were ordered to be regularised on those posts, but in the present case, the petitioner was not qualified for appointment on the post of L.D.C. as he was lacking the requisite qualification. He was appointed as Helper and was made semi-permanent after two years' service. Even when he was made semi- permanent he was not possessing the requisite qualification for the post of L.D.C. When the petitioner was never appointed as L.D.C. nor was he treated as such, therefore, giving relaxation in the educational qualification or regularising his services on the post of Lower Division Clerk, cannot be extended to the petitioner. Even when he was made semi- permanent he was not possessing the requisite qualification for the post of L.D.C. When the petitioner was never appointed as L.D.C. nor was he treated as such, therefore, giving relaxation in the educational qualification or regularising his services on the post of Lower Division Clerk, cannot be extended to the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner was made on the post of Helper and, therefore, he cannot be regularised on the post of L.D.C. though the work of the post of L.D.C. was taken from the petitioner. Since the petitioner was appointed as a Helper and is a semipermanent Helper and though he worked on the post of L.D.C., therefore, if the petitioner has been transferred to the Water-works wing on the post of Helper then the petitioner cannot raise any grievance for his transfer to that post as he does not acquire any right to remain on the post of L.D.C. merely on the basis that the work of the post of L.D.C. for sometime was taken from him. The order Annexure 5, passed by the respondents, does not suffer from any infirmity. 9. In the result, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******