JAGDISH BHALLA, J. The two writ petitions raise the same question of fact and law and hance are being disposed of by this com mon judgment. 2. By means of these two writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commend ing the respondents to pay University Grant Commission pay scale i. e. Rs. 2, 200-4, 0007-and all other admissible benefits which the permanent Lecturers are getting and have also prayed for the quashing of the Govern ment Order dated 22. 7. 1986 contained in Annexure No. 3 to Writ Petition No. 4812 of 1988, by which a novel method has been adopted by the State Government by calling upon the qualified unemployed teachers to work on voluntary basis for taking lecturers in the classes. This has been done by the State Government for the reason that there are vacancies of Lecturers. In Writ Petition No. 4812 of 1988 one prayer is with regard to continuation of the petitioners till regular selections are being made by the U. P. Public Service Commission. However, in the other writ petition, i. e. Writ Petition No. 27683 of 1993 instead of above prayer it has been prayed that the respondents may not hold selection on the post on which the petitioners are working in pursuance of the advertisement contained in Annexure-12 of that writ petition. 3. It has been submitted that since 1971 and till dated admittedly less than SO ap pointments have been made in Colleges where at the present 450 vacancies are lying vacant. The U. P. Public Service Commission on made an advertisement in the year 1981 but the said advertisement was cancelled and no selection could be held. The ad hoc teachers in the Government Degree Col leges and Post Graduate Colleges have been regularised in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Regularisation of ad hoc Appointments (on Posts With in the Pur view of U. P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 (here in after referred as to the Regularisation Rules, 1979 ). The State Government under the aforesaid Regularisation Rules, 1979 again regula rised all the ad hoc lecturers working in the Government Colleges who were given ap pointment on or before 1. 5. 1983. Thus, 307 teachers under the Regularisation Rules, 1979 (Amended Rules 1981) were regularised. The State Government under the aforesaid Regularisation Rules, 1979 again regula rised all the ad hoc lecturers working in the Government Colleges who were given ap pointment on or before 1. 5. 1983. Thus, 307 teachers under the Regularisation Rules, 1979 (Amended Rules 1981) were regularised. Since 450 ad hoc teachers were regularised, therefore, the State Govern ment in order to deny the benefit of regularisation to the ad hoc teachers started a now practice of giving appointment only for 120 days and after artificial breaks, fresh appointments were issued to those teacher. The ad hoc teachers appointed for 120 days approached this Court, by means of several writ petitions and some of them directly approached the Honble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Garhwal Region Students Union of Government Degree Colleges also ap proached the Honble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Honble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition arising out of the judgments of this Court as also in the matter of Garhwal Region Students Union of Government De gree Colleges directed the State Govern ment to fill all the vacancies immediately. 4. It has been emphatically argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners that to circumvent the orders of the Honble Supreme Court instead of filling-up the vacancies and with a view to deny the benefits of regularisations to ad hoc teachers a novel method was adopted by the State Government by calling- upon un employed educated qualified youth to come forward voluntarily and accept giving lec tures at the rate of Rs. 15/- per lecture with a rider of minimum of 12 lectures and maxi mum of 18 lectures per week which was subsequently amended by a Government Order to a minimum of 18 lectures and maximum of 21 lectures. This, accordingly to learned Counsel for the petitioners, straight away amounts to engaging qualified youth as teachers to deprive them of the status, pay scale and feeling of security of being permanent lecturers teachers. It has been argued that this action of the Govern ment amounts to exploiting the un employed youth to accept something better than to be unemployed. 5. We are of the view that no Govern ment particularly a Welfare Stateand India being a Welfare State, can even think of formulating such a plan. It has been argued that this action of the Govern ment amounts to exploiting the un employed youth to accept something better than to be unemployed. 5. We are of the view that no Govern ment particularly a Welfare Stateand India being a Welfare State, can even think of formulating such a plan. We are further of the view that despite the Judgment of the apex Court rendered in S. L. P. (Civil) 9569 of 1983 and 6906 of 1983 directing the State Government to take immediate steps to fill-up the vacancies against which some of the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis and in accordance with the relevant recruit ment rules through the Public Service Com mission, the State Govt. insteading of fill ing-up the vacancies in accordance with law. has encouraged ad hoc is which has been depricated by the apex Court, there by a wrong has been done by the respondents by inviting applications from the trained graduate to act like a daily wager on volun tary basis. It has directed by the apex Court that petitioners who are working on such posts whether under orders of the Court or otherwise shall continue to hold the post on ad hoc basis till the vacancies are filled-up and they shall cease to hold the post imme diately on regular appointments being made and salary will be paid up-to date. 6. The petitioners are still working as teachers in their institutions and are being paid wages according to Government Order dated 22. 7. 1986. 7. The State Govt. an exercise of powers conferred by the provisions of the Regularisation Rules, 1979, which Rules were framed under Arti. 309 of the Con stitution, regularised the services of such teachers who were directly appointed before 1. 1. 1977 and had completed three years of service and, thus had become en titled for regularisation of their services, without facing the selection committee and no advertisement was issued. They simply applied and were appointed by the Principlals of the institutions as and when vacan cies had occurred in the College. Thereafter the State Govt. again amended the Regularisation Rules, 1979 in which clause-9 has been added through Notification. They simply applied and were appointed by the Principlals of the institutions as and when vacan cies had occurred in the College. Thereafter the State Govt. again amended the Regularisation Rules, 1979 in which clause-9 has been added through Notification. The said Clause-9 reads as under: "rule-9.-The provisions of the these rule shall apply, mutatis mutandis, also to any person directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or before May 1, 1983 and continuing in service as such as the date of Commencement of the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments [on posts with in the Purview of the Public Services Com mission (Amendment] Rules, 1984. " Thus, under the amended Rules, all these ad hoc lecturers who have been appointed prior to 1. 5. 1983 and were working on the date of amendment had been given benefit of regularisation. 8. The Honble Supreme Court has depricated the practice of ad hoc is in the case reported in A. I. R. 1981 Supreme Court 1286, Kabinarayan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa. In said Judgment, the apex Court directed the State of Orissa to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation. We do not find any substance in the argument of the learned Standing Counsel that the scheme under which the petitioners have been appointed is a voluntary scheme and it is upon the icumbent to come forward and accept the voluntary teaching scheme for which they would be paid according to lec tures. The further argument of the learned Standing Counsel that it does not give any right to the petitioners on the post in ques tion is also misconceived. We are of the view that the writ petitions were filed way back in 1988 and 1993 and interim orders were granted and the petitioners are still working as such and earlier also ad hoc teachers were appointed whose services were regularised in the due course of time and at least the petitioners have a right to be considered for ragularisation. In a number of cases, the Honble Supreme Court has indicated equal pay for equal work and has directed the concerned authorities for making payment of same emoluments to the incumbents working in the organization starting with the case of Ranbir Singh v. Union of India, (1982, 1 S. C. C. 618. In a number of cases, the Honble Supreme Court has indicated equal pay for equal work and has directed the concerned authorities for making payment of same emoluments to the incumbents working in the organization starting with the case of Ranbir Singh v. Union of India, (1982, 1 S. C. C. 618. In the case reported in the Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U. P (1986) 1 S. C. C. 637 certain casual labourers working in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras ap proached the Honble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution with a grievance that their wages be equated along with the wages of regular similarly situated employees in service. The Honble Supreme Court issued its hope and trust that the posts will be sanctioned by the Central Govt. in different Kendras so that the per sons may be regularised and it was further indicated in the judgment that it is not at all desirable that the management and par ticular the Central Govt. should continue to employee persons on casual basis in or ganizations which have been in existence for over 12 years. Thereafter, again such mat ters were considered by the apex Court in various cases e. g. Surendra Singh v. Engineer- in-Chief, (1986) 1scc 639 ; R. D. Gupta v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration, (1987) 4 S. C. C. 505 and Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, (1987) 4. S. C. C. 634 and the Honble Supreme Court re-affirmed its earlier views. There after in the case of Jaipal v. State of Haryana, (1988) 3. S. C. C. 354 reiterated its earlier view with regard to equal pay for equal work on the ground of nature of work irrespective whether the in cumbent was working on permanent or tem porary post. Similarly, the Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1995 SC 1115 1995 (1) LBESR 472 (SC), UPS. R. T. Corpn. v. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishikhit Borozgar Sangh and others has held that in matters of appointment, even apprentice has a right to be considered on preferential basis as com pared to new imcumbent. 9. In the premise, we are of the view that the Government Order dt. 22. 7. 1986 is liable to be quashed and the petitioners are entitled atleast the minimum pay scale in the regular pay scale for lecturers teaching in same colleges. 9. In the premise, we are of the view that the Government Order dt. 22. 7. 1986 is liable to be quashed and the petitioners are entitled atleast the minimum pay scale in the regular pay scale for lecturers teaching in same colleges. According to the petitioners it is scale of pay of Rs. 2, 200-4, 000/ -. In the circumstances, we direct that the petitioners be paid salary instead of per lecture equivalent to Rs. 15/- if not already enhanced, in the minimum of the scale of pay. In case the pay scale has been enhanced, then salary shall be paid in the enhanced pay scale. We further provide that the case of the petitioners for regularisation be considered in the light of observations made above and in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition is allowed in terms mentioned above. Parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .