JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition, the petitioner has made prayer to regularise to his service as Surveyor or Junior Engineer by absorbing him as permanent Government employee and fix his pay as the pay-scale allowable to the said post with all service benefits of annual grade increments etc. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his argument to the extent of a direction to the respondents to pay Rs. 85/- per day as is being paid to Diploma-holder/Surveyor by the Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan vidb Annexure-7. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as daily-rated Diploma-holder/Surveyor on 1st July, 1989 by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department (for short `P.H.E.D.'). He was paid Rs. 30/- per day. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner were terminated on April 1, 1990. The petitioner challenged that order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5744/90 before this Court and the same was allowed by this Court on 5th August, 1992. In pursuance to the judgment of the High Court, the petitioner was reinstated with continuity of service on daily wages as per the rate which was being paid to him earlier vide order dated 28.10.93. The daily wages payable to the petitioner was subsequently, revised to Rs. 45/- per day. In writ petition as well as in rejoinder the petitioner has mentioned certain persons, who are posted on the same post as daily-rated, who are being paid Rs. 85 per day. 3. In reply, the respondents have come out with a case that the Superintending Engineer, P.H.E.D. was not competent to appoint the petitioner even on daily wages. It was also pleaded interalia that the service of the petitioner was terminated on 1.4.90 as there was no sanctioned post or work, but he was taken back in service to honour the judgment of the High Court. For regularisation, it was contended that even his initial appointment on daily wages was not made by a competent authority and appointments to the post of Junior Engineers are made in accordance with the provisions contained in the concerned service rules and the practise of regularisation by back-door entry has been depreciated even by the Supreme Court. With regard to payment of Rs. With regard to payment of Rs. 85/- per day, it was contended by the respondents that there is no sanctioned post of Surveyor, and that the petitioner is not performing the duties of Surveyor. 4. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. It is not disputed that the petitioner has the qualification of diploma in civil engineering and he has been working on the post of Diploma-holder/Surveyor in P.H.E.D. since 1989. The post of Diploma-holder has now been designated as Junior Engineer. It is also true that the petitioner was appointed by the Superintending Engineer after examining his educational qualification and suitability for the work, but admittedly, he has not been appointed after due selection under the related service rules. It is also not disputed before me that on Bhajan Lal, who is also a Diploma-holder in engineering and is working on daily wages, is being paid Rs. 85/- per day. The petitioner has also given other illustrations of Diploma-holders who are being paid Rs. 85/- per day. Recently, a Co-ordinate Bench at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 643/94 (Brij Mohan v. State) has granted relief to the petitioner in that petition and to pay him Rs. 85/- per day in accordance to new B.S.R. of 1993. In that case, the petitioner is a Diploma-holder in civil engineering and was appointed on daily wages by the P.H.E.D. 5. It is true that the practise of making appointments on daily wages create problems and this practise has been depreciated by various Courts, including the Apex Court of the country. But it is equally true that the un-employment problem prevailing in the country should not be used by a welfare State. to deprive a person to get that wages which is being paid to similarly circumstanced person in other Department. I find no reason as to why petitioner should not be paid Rs. 85/- per day, which is paid to Diploma- holder/Surveyor by the Public Works Department as per new B.S.R. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that no work of Surveyor is being taken from the petitioner as no such work exists stands falsified by Annexure-2 dated 31.1.94 filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 85/- per day and there is no reason that I should take a contrary view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 643/94. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner Rs. 85/- per day from the date of filing the writ petition i.e. 11.7.1994 and necessary order be passed in this connection within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The costs of this petition is made easy.Writ petition allowed in part. *******