JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The petitioners No. 1 to 7 have been working as helpers on daily wages with effect from 18.7.1985, 3.10.1986,3.10.1986, 13.12.1986, 6.7.1987, 11.7.1987 and 1.1.1989, respectively. The regular scale for the post of helper in the office of the respondent is Rs. 750-940 "w.e.f. 1.9.1988. The respondent is not paying to the petitioners their wages in accordance with the said scale, but they are being paid at the rate of Rs. 22/-per day only. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that the respondent be directed to pay them the same wages that are paid to the regularly appointed helpers in the office of the respondent with effect from the date of their joining services. On receipt of notice, Shri L.L. Jain has appeared on behalf of the respondent and has filed reply. It is not disputed that the petitioners have been employed as helpers on daily wages and are not being paid their salary in the regular scale of helper, but are being paid on daily wages basis. It is, however, contended that the job being done by the petitioners is not the same as is being done by the regular helpers and also that the petitioners have not worked throughout since the date of their initial appointments. It is also contended that the petitioners have not come through the employment exchange and that there is no sanctioned post or budget from the Government allocated by the Government for paying to the employees. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, not been able to explain as to what difference is there is the duties being carried out by the petitioners and the duties being carried out by the regular helpers, and as such, it has to be taken that the petitioners have been performing the same duties which a regular helper has been performing in the office of the respondent. The fact that the petitioners have not been in continuous service for all the period, but there have been any breaks in their continuous appointment to the post of helper, daily wages, would not make any difference in their right to get equal pay for equal work, and if the petitioners remained out of service for any period due to break or otherwise, they would not be paid for the said period only. 4. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no sanctioned post is again not well founded as it is admitted that the post has been sanctioned, but only on daily wages. If an employer takes work from an employee, he has to pay him in accordance with law and he cannot take shelter under the garb that the post was sanctioned by the sanctioning authority only for being paid on daily wages basis. The contention can, therefore, not be accepted. Similarly, it cannot be said that there was no budget provision made for the post of regular scale basis and in the absence of such budget provision, the payment cannot be made to the petitioners. It is for the employer to make provision for budget to pay its employees in accordance with law, if he takes work from them, whether they are appointed through the employment exchange or otherwise. 5. Since the petitioners have been working as helpers and have been doing the same duties as a regular helper does, each one of them is entitled to get his salary at the minimum of the scale as the regular helper gets since the date of their respective appointments which scale is Rs. 750-940 with effect from 1.9.1988. The, of course, would be paid the salary according to the scale as prevailing at the relevant time for the period that they have been working. All the arrears, in this regard, should be paid by the respondent to the petitioners within a period of four months from today.Petition allowed. *******