R. L. SHNKLA, J. ( 1 ) BY this order following L. B. As. are being disposed of. The Bank has filed appeals against 24 petitioners who have also filed separ to appeals. As such, appeals filed by both the parties are show against each other. Smt. Manisha Wd/o Subhash Bhanwar has filed by the Apex Bank in this case. Subhash Bhanwar, husband of Smt. Manisha (Appellant in LPA No. 86/94 was appointed as driver. He died. As such, Smt. Manisha has filed MP. No. 194/93 for. being given appointment on compassionate ground. ( 2 ) NATIONAL Co-operative Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ('ncdc) floated a scheme for constructing godown at various places. M. P. Rajya Sahakari Bank (Maryadit) (hereinafter referred to as the Apex Bank) was appointed as Executing Agency. ( 3 ) THE petitioners were appointed and holding posts as show against each of the petitions as below. Year Loss in Rs. i. 2000-01 100. 80 Crores ii. 2001-02 126. 85 Crores iii. 2002-03 201. 60 Crores ( 4 ) ALL these petitioners were initally appointed as Daily wagers but they were continued in services for years. After completion of the work of construction of godowns i. e. after completion of the porject the employees were recommended to be absorbed in District. Central Co-operative Banks at various places. The State Government who is respondent No 4 here and was respondent No, 4 in the petition, sanctioned the absorption in the district Central Co-operative Banks (hereinafter referred to as 'district bank ). The employees herein were directed to join within 15 days However, as they were not relieved in time and their absorotion and posting in disirict Bank and further apprehended inadequacy of payment and therefore ihey filed separate petitions seeking a direction prohibiting discontinuance from service and granting regularisetion with further prayer of adoption of petition on the principle of equal pay for equal work. ( 5 ) THE petitioners pressed mainly the following point during the hearing of the petition :"the work of project is not over. The Tenders have been notified for remaining work at various places and, therefore, service could not be discontinued on the ground of cessession of work or abolition of post,"it was further contended that the petitioners have continued on ( 6 ) SERVICE ranging from 6 to 14 years and, therefore their discontinuations from service is unjust. The Tenders have been notified for remaining work at various places and, therefore, service could not be discontinued on the ground of cessession of work or abolition of post,"it was further contended that the petitioners have continued on ( 6 ) SERVICE ranging from 6 to 14 years and, therefore their discontinuations from service is unjust. They have now become overage. That would disentitle them for getting appropriate job. The Apex Bank was under a legal obligation to regularise their services and pay proper salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work. . . . ( 7 ) RESPONDENT it is alleged, have adopted a policy of pick and choose and junior persons have been retained in service while senior persons have been thrown away. ( 8 ) RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 3 in the petition (i. e. appellant and respondent No. 4 here) pleaded by way of Raturn that Apex Bank was only an executing agency and the appointment was only for a limited period for the duration of project. They were appointed on fixed pay. The Apex Bank further submitted that the petitioners were appointed only for the project work which has come to a close, as such they have acquired no right to remain on the posts they were occupying and for regularisation and other reliefs claimed by them. The NCDC has also partially supported the contention of the Apex Bank without owing any responsibility of employment and its continuance and the similar is the position of State of M. P. and Registrar, co-operative Societies. ( 9 ) LEARNED Single Judge disposed of petitions with following directions:" (a) The petitioner shall not be removed from service without proper and legal grounds, just on the plea of closure of project and without reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerning individual. (b) The petitioners shall be considered for absorption/regularisation against sanctioned posts, as may be found in existence at present and as may be available here after without unnecessary delay and for this purpose the Respondent No. 1 shall prepare list of all persons similarly situate and grant all benefits according to seniority and merit ensuring absence of arbitrariness and hostile discrimination with due ragard to Article 14/12 of the Constitution of India. (c) Absorption/ Regularisation shall be considered from the date of vacancy and arrears of emoluments, if any. (c) Absorption/ Regularisation shall be considered from the date of vacancy and arrears of emoluments, if any. shall be paid to such petitioners who are found eligible and entitled for the same from retrospective dates of vacancies. (d) The petitioners shall not be transferred or displaced to different places or units without issuance of order for absorption/regularisation. " ( 10 ) BOTH the parties as shown in para 1 above have filed appeals. The contention of learned counsel Shri A M. Mathur appearing for Apex Bank is as follows: firstly, that the pelitioners are employees under a project. The project was floated by N. C. D. C. Apex Bank was appointed as an exectutive agency and. therefore, after expiry of the project or on project's work coming to an end petitioners lost their right of further continuance in service. Secondly, the funds for the scheme were made available by NCDC and after the close of the project N. C. D. C. has stopped financing. These appointments were not against the sanctioned posts and were purely temporary in nature. The petitioners entered into service on a specific contract of pay and emoluments and for specific work of project, therefore, they cannot demand regularisation of their service after completion of the project. As such direction against the termination of their services od completion of project and consequent regularitation is illegal ( 11 ) AS against it, learned counsel for the respondents Shri Sanyal has submitted that since the petitioners have been in the employment for a long period ranging from 6 to 14 years (varying in individual case) and, therefore, they are entitled to be regularised and they cannot be removed from services except on disciplinary grounds. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Apex Bank had also discriminated in matters of payment and the petitioners ought to have been paid like any other employee of the Apex Bank and, therefore, all arrears on the basis of equal work be directed to be directed to be paid to them. The third contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that Apex bank be directed to pay back wages and arrears to the petitioners which direction learned Single Judge has failed to give. It has also been submitted that the project work has not come to an end. The third contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that Apex bank be directed to pay back wages and arrears to the petitioners which direction learned Single Judge has failed to give. It has also been submitted that the project work has not come to an end. ( 12 ) DURING the course of arguments learned counsel for petitioners in lap 102/94 filed an application for taking a paper-news into consideration and for admission in evidence which shows that Government of M. P. has abolished the system of attachment. One more application was filed whereby it has been tried to state that some engineers junior to the petitioner have 'been attached to Apex Bank while the petitioner has not been retained and has been directed to join, in the District Co-operative Bank. ( 13 ) WE would like to dispose of these applications first. The news item shown in 'nai Duniya' cannot be taken to be a proof. This did not appear to be a press statement issued by the State Govt. Under the circustances this paper-news cannot be acted upon. ( 14 ) SO far as the second application is concerned that will take care of while passing final order in the matter. ( 15 ) WE would first like to deal with the challenge to the fact of coming to an end of the project or scheme as contended and pleaded by apex Bank. ( 16 ) ON perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge it is evident that the fact of project haying come to an end has not been seriously chgllenge and the same cannot be allowed to be agitated now in LPA, ( 17 ) A letter of M. P. R. S. (Maryadit) Apex Bank to Branch Manager rajya Sahakari Bank, Indore as shown at Page 119 of Paper-book of LPA no 106/94, clearly shows that the NCDC project is already over on 30-6-92. The Apex Bank in its reply has show at page 60 to 81 of the Paper-book of lpa 106/94 has very clearly stated that the project work has come to an end and the process of closing same is on. There was no serious challenge to this by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be agitaed by now. There was no serious challenge to this by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be agitaed by now. ( 18 ) THE appointment letters issued as shown at pages 18 to 26 of the said Paper-book go to show that the appointments were purely temporary and the same were being extended from time to time according to the need. The order at Page 26 of the said Paper-book clearly shown that the services were to be terminated on completion of one year. This further goes to show and as observed by learned Single Judge that the appointments were purely temporary and the petitioners were either employed as temporary employees or as daily wage earners. We, theiefore, proceed with the assumption that the appointments were purely temporary for certain period and was for a particular project. Some of the petitioners were appointed as daily wage earners which continued year after year. ( 19 ) THIS fact that the petitioners were employed under the NCDC project was also not seriously controverted and, therefore, we also accept it that the petitioners were employees under NCDC Project. The project was financed by NCDC and Apex Bank was appointed as executing agency. Thus, it comes out that the work was not of a permanent nature nor appointments were against the permanent sanctioned posts. During the course of arguments both the counsel ultimately agreed to the facts referred to above, we would, thereforr, decide the case on the basis of facts as enumerated above. ( 20 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants Apex Bank has submitted that eince this was a project work financed by NCDC the petitioners were purely temporary appointees either as daily wage earners or under a contract service and that the project has coms to an end and, therefore, they are entitled to the regularisation or coatinunaoce in the service as a matter of right. ( 21 ) AS against it learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have got a fundamental riaht of livelihood and as they have worked for nearly 6 to 14 years they are entitled to be regularised and for continuance of service as directed by learned Single Judge. ( 21 ) AS against it learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have got a fundamental riaht of livelihood and as they have worked for nearly 6 to 14 years they are entitled to be regularised and for continuance of service as directed by learned Single Judge. ( 22 ) WHILE granting relief in such cases the court has to take into consideration whether the employee has been working against a permanent sanctioned post or was temporarily appointed for a particular period or for a particular work. ( 23 ) THOUGH, Directive principle of the Constitution of India (Under article 41) makes a provision that the State shall within the limits of its econmic capacity and development make effective provision for securing the, right to work but that the has not been accepted to be a fundamental right till date as the economic capacity of the State is not sufficient to ensure right to work to all the able-bodied and qualified persons. This country has so far not found it feasible to incorporate the right to livelihood as a fundamental right in the Constitution. This is because the country has so far not attained the capacity to guarantee it, and not because it considers it any less fundamental to life. Advisedly, therefore, is has been placed in the Chapter of Directive Principles Article 41 of which enjoins upon the State to make effective provision for securing the same "within the limits of its economic capacity and development. " Thus even while giving the direction to the Stafe to ensure the right to work, the constitution-makers thought it prudent nor to do so without qualifying it air 1992 SC 789 Delhi Development Horticulture Employoe Union v. Delhi administration Delhi and Ors. ( 24 ) IT is note-worthy that at no stage any regular posts were created under the Apex Bank either for Engineers and Supervisors clearks and drivers and as the project was financed by NCDC the Apex Bank (Appellant)cannot be compelled to regularise the sefvice of petitioners here. A similar question arose before the Apex Court of the Country in a dispute betweenr delhi Development Horticulture Employees 'union' and D. A. D. case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the contention of daily wagers to be regularised with following observation :"at no stage any regular posts were created under the DRDA either for Supervisors etc. A similar question arose before the Apex Court of the Country in a dispute betweenr delhi Development Horticulture Employees 'union' and D. A. D. case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the contention of daily wagers to be regularised with following observation :"at no stage any regular posts were created under the DRDA either for Supervisors etc. or for the labourers, as it was not possible to do so since the scheme were financed by the Government of india, and the DRDA was only the implementing machinery for the employment programme under the said scheme "under the Project Apex Bank (appellant) was required to construct godowns at various districts and Sub-divisional Head Quarters. The godowns were financed by NCDC The Apex Bank (Appellant) was appointed as an executing Agency and, therefore, employees recruited and apoointed for the purpose of this project would not be deemed to be regular employees of apex Bank They have not been appointed against the sanctioned posts of apex Bank and therefore, they are not entitled for continuance and regularisation of the service. ( 25 ) IN the case referred above the earlier decisions of Supreme Court passed in W P. No. 818/89 were reviewed and, therefore the case referred by learned counsel for petitioners as reported in (1992) 4 S. C. C. at Page 115 (Delhi Administraticn and others v. Vijay Lal Sharma) and AIR 1991 SC 2088 (All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers Association v. Stale of Manipur) are of no help to the petitioners. 'for regularisation, there must be regular and permanent posts or it must be established that although the work is of regular and permanent nature. the device of appointing and keeping the workers on ad hoc or temporary basis has been reverted to, to deny them the legitimate benefits of permanent employment. " ( AIR 1992 SC 789 ). 'for regularisation, there must be regular and permanent posts or it must be established that although the work is of regular and permanent nature. the device of appointing and keeping the workers on ad hoc or temporary basis has been reverted to, to deny them the legitimate benefits of permanent employment. " ( AIR 1992 SC 789 ). ( 26 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court while deciding the case ddheu (supra) had made following observations in para 15 of their judgment which is as follows:"apart from the fact that the petitioners can not be directed to be regularised for the reasons given above, we may take note of the pernicious consequences to which the direction for regularisation of workmen on the only ground that they have put in work for 240 or more days, has been leading, Athough there is Employment Exchange But which requires recruitment on the basisof registration in the Employment Exchange, it has become a commen practice to ignore the Employment Exchange and tbe persons registered in the Employment Bxchange, and to employ an get employed directly those who are either not registered with the Employment Exchange or who though registered are lower in the long waiting list in the Employment register. The courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal consideration including money. The employment is given first for temporary period with technical breaks to circumvent the relevant rules, and is continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of regularisation knowing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatinally regularised. A good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in a new wourse of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting at tbe Employment Exchange for years. Not all those who gain such back-door entry in the employment are in need of the particular jobs. Though already employed elsewhere, they join the jobs for better and secured prospects. That is why most of the cases which come to the courts are of employment in qovernment Departments. Public undertakings or Agencies. Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour. "in our opinion it should always be kept in mind while giving any direction for regularisation. That is why most of the cases which come to the courts are of employment in qovernment Departments. Public undertakings or Agencies. Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour. "in our opinion it should always be kept in mind while giving any direction for regularisation. ( 27 ) SIMILAR view was expressed by their Lordships in a case reported in AIR 1994 SC 1688 Madhyomik Siksha Parishad v. Anil kumar Mishra and ors. Their Lordships observed thus :"rrgularisation Right of Workers on temporary assignment only, working on unsanctioned posts No right of regularisation exists for such employees. " ( 28 ) HOWEVER, since most of these petitioners have been working with the Apex Bank for about 6 to 14 years many of them may haye become over-age and, therefore, certain directions on compensate grounds can be given for providing them an opportunity of employment. It may be against future vacancies or against the vacancies present in other branches of Bank under the control of Apex Bank. In a case reported in AIR 1994 SC 216 c. A. Shankar Prasad and others v. Karnataka State Adult Education Council and others ; their Lordships observed :"we are, however, of the view that the petitioners having served the adult Education Council for over a decade the Council which is stili operating must utilise the services of these petitioners if and when some vacancies arc made available. We, therefore direct that and the vacancies after the closure of the Central Sector scheme which have become available or will arise in future under the control of the Adult Education Council be offered to the petitioners keeping in view their eligibility and experience. " ( 29 ) NOW we come to the second question which has hardly contested by the parties as to whether the petitioners are entitled for back-wages and arrears of pay on the basis of equal pay for equal work. " ( 29 ) NOW we come to the second question which has hardly contested by the parties as to whether the petitioners are entitled for back-wages and arrears of pay on the basis of equal pay for equal work. Learned Counsel for petitioners has referred to a case reported in AIR 1994 SC 265 ; Vijay Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others : where the part-time lecturers who were not gainfully employed else where aad were working for more hours every day as compared to regularly appointed lecturers were held to be entitled to be paid according to minimum of pay scale prescribed for regularly appointed lecturers duties of which post they were discharging. ( 30 ) WE are in respectful agreement with the observations of their lordships. But here the case is different Petitioner were appointed purely on temporary basis either as daily wage workers or on the basis of contract service. There are no sanctionen posts with the Apex bank The project wae for a limited period. The petitioners accepted the job knowing fully well that the job was of temporary nature and for a limited period. They have never raised this plea earlier before their discontinuance or absorption under a scheme in District Banks working under the Apex Bank. Thus, their claim now has become old and stale as well. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioners in this case are neither entitled for back-wages nor for arrears of pay as demand by them. This principle of equal work is an ideal that ought to have been achieved but these lofty ideals are difficult to be achieved with the present economic capacity of the nation. ( 31 ) IT is a matter of common experience that the seekers of job and employment are much more in number than the jobs available. Only certain percentage of fortunate persons get the employment. Many others just remained contented for whatever job they receive for earning their livelihood. A labour working with the spade in the agricultural field gets much less than what a labour working with a spade gets in iren and steel, coal mines and Indian Railways. Only certain percentage of fortunate persons get the employment. Many others just remained contented for whatever job they receive for earning their livelihood. A labour working with the spade in the agricultural field gets much less than what a labour working with a spade gets in iren and steel, coal mines and Indian Railways. Persons who are already in employment because of their own needs and because of the power they enjoy because of the unions would not allow the freezing wages till person at the lowest level is brought to the same standard. Thus, the principle of equal pay for equal work remains only a lofty ideal to be achieved. We are afraid if a direction or a mandate for equal pay for equal work even for temporary nature of work under a scheme issued it would be difficult to give even for few days employment to many unemployed persons. In a country like this where the millions and millions of persons are wondering for want of job, will have to be provided even partial employment. be it with lesser wages their sustainance and livelihood and, therefore. whenever such works are undertaken by the State for providing part employment temporary employment or a periodical employment to persons for their sustainance and livelihood they cannot be permitted to agitate that they should be given the same pay as other employees with similar nature of work the getting or else the State and Institutions who are working under the State or which can be termed to be the State under Article 12 of the Constitution shall refrain from under-taking such scheme and work and the seekers of the job would be deprsved of whatever partial employment they can be provided under such schemts. ( 32 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has referred to a case reported in AIR 1987 SC 2342 Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under Pandt Department v. Union of India and others and a case reported in AIR 1990 S. C. 1670 dr. V. J. Chandra and others v. All India Instttitute of Medical Sciences and othtra in support of his contentions. In the first case the casual labourers in Post and Telegraph Department were denied minimum pay. V. J. Chandra and others v. All India Instttitute of Medical Sciences and othtra in support of his contentions. In the first case the casual labourers in Post and Telegraph Department were denied minimum pay. The same was held to be exploitation of labour and was held that the classification of casual labourers for purposes of payment at different rates of wages is violative of constitution. ( 33 ) THIS is not the case here, ths petitioners were employees under a project that too under a contract for specific period and as daily wages, in the second case their Lordships of the Supreme Court gave directions to Indian Council of Medical Rcserch to offer adequate employment to reserehers within a specific period. This facts of that case were absolutely different. ( 34 ) THOUGH, it is true that the principles of equal pay for equal work ought to be followed between similarly employed employees, ( AIR 1986 SC 584 Surinder Singh and Anr v. The Engineer in Chief, CPWD and others ). But. there as observed the case is different. The persons employed as drivers, clerks supervisors and Engineers under the Project were not differentiated in the matter of payment and they interest were getting similar payment and the same can not be said to be discriminatory. ( 35 ) MR. Justice Shri A. K. Mathur (as he then was) had taken a contrary view in the matter and has held in M. P. No. 1781/83 (Ghabbilal and ors v. M. P. R Bank and on) that the persons appointed for a project work are not entitled to be absorbed. Thus there is a conflict of opinion between learned two Single judges i. e. view taken by Mr. Justice A. R. Tiwari in the impunned judgment and the view taken by Mr, Justice A. K. Mathur in m. P. No. 1781/93. From the discussions in the earlier paragraphs it is evident that we ate inclined to accept the view taken by Mr. A. K. Mathur, ACJ in Chabbilal's Case (supra ). ( 36 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners Shri Sanyal has lastly submitted that the principle of estoppel applied against the Apex Bank as they themselves have started scheme of absorption and regularisation We do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel. A. K. Mathur, ACJ in Chabbilal's Case (supra ). ( 36 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners Shri Sanyal has lastly submitted that the principle of estoppel applied against the Apex Bank as they themselves have started scheme of absorption and regularisation We do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The petitioner acquire no vested right of absorption in the Apex Bank as they were not appointed against sanctioned vacant posts, but were appointed for a project work on purely temporary basis and, therefore, if out of respite or for showing clamency to petitioners, looking to the period of service rendered by them any scheme for their absoroption in the DCBS agginst the permanent vacancy available, was taken up, that would not crept any further right in favour of the petitioners, and therefore, in our opinion the principle of estoppellis not attracted in cases of these petitioners ( 37 ) DURING the pendeney of these appeals, with the consent of parties a committeee was directed to be constituted for exploring the possibility for providing the alternative employment to the petitioners. The committee has submitted its report and shown the vacancies available at various districts Co-operative Banks. ( 38 ) THE committee consisting of the representatives of the Apex Bank (Appellent) has submitted its report and shown the vacancies available at various places including Apex Bank and the District Co-operative Banks working under it. Under the circumstances, it would be in fitness of things to grant certain reliefs regarding extending the facility of giving alternative jobs to the petitioners. ( 39 ) THE learned Single Judge has given certain relief of absorption of petitioners. We do not agree with respect to tbe direction of absorption and regularisation of services of petitioners with the Apex bank as a matter of right. ( 40 ) BUT, in view of the vacancies reported by the Committee we modify the order of learned Single Judge as follows and dispose of these appaas accordingly. Tn the result the appeal filed by the Apex Bank partly succeeds. The appeal filed by the petitioners for payment of back wages and arrears is dismissed, as they are not entitled for the same. The petitioners are not entitled for regularisation and continuation in service in Apex Bank after closure of the Project. Tn the result the appeal filed by the Apex Bank partly succeeds. The appeal filed by the petitioners for payment of back wages and arrears is dismissed, as they are not entitled for the same. The petitioners are not entitled for regularisation and continuation in service in Apex Bank after closure of the Project. However, as the petitioners bad been working with the Apex Bank for pretty long period and most of them may have become over-age it is therefore, directed that they shall be absorbed in the Apex Bank agaiast the parament vacancies available as on today. (a) This absorption shall be subject to requisite qualification provided under the Rules or Standing Instructions of the Apex bank. However, the Bank and the Government may also relan the particular rule if the same is causing hurt to any of the petitioners. (b) There shall be no hostile discrimination. The principle of "last come first go" shall be applied and adhered to. (c) All other persons who can not be absorbed shall be given alternative employment in different District Co-operative Central banks if, the posts are available there. In case, the petitioners do not accept and join alternative employment offered within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. they shall loose their right of alternative employment. This absorption shall be subject to the availability of the posts in dccb. (d) It is made clear that for implementing these directions Apex bank Shall take into consideration the cases of all such affected employees i. e. employees working under this project jointly. The employment, if available shall be given to them as per the directions and principles shown in the above paragraph. (e) It is further clarified that if services of some persons are taken on the basts of attachment such attachement shall be done by adopting the principle of 'last come first go 'and seniority and length of service. ( 41 ) SO far as L. P. A. No. 86/94 (Smt Manisha Wd/o Subas Bhanwar v. M. P. S. R. Bank and others, is concerned, the petitioner is seeking employment on the basis of compensionate ground as her husband has expired during his employment with the Apex Bank. ( 41 ) SO far as L. P. A. No. 86/94 (Smt Manisha Wd/o Subas Bhanwar v. M. P. S. R. Bank and others, is concerned, the petitioner is seeking employment on the basis of compensionate ground as her husband has expired during his employment with the Apex Bank. The appellant Apex Bank shall consider the case of the petitioner and provide employment on compaisionate grounds (if the same is permissible under the rules and standing instructions of the Apex Bank) ; if the otherwise qualifies for the job, she the may. be given employment even in District Co-operative Bank Under apex Bank, if she is ready to accept the job offered in such bank. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost. Counsel fee Rs. 300/-in each appeal. .