Honble ARORA, J. – These special appeals are directed against the judgments dated 26-5-95 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners relying upon the S.B Judgment of this Court : Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Karamchari Sangh vs. State of Rajasthan andothers (1) and directed the appellants (Respondents in the writ petitions)to pay to the petitioners the minimum salary in the pay scales applicable to the posts of regular Driver in the case of Bala Ram and Electrician in the case of Kanhaiya Lal, from the date of their filing the writ petitions and consider their cases for regularisation in service in the light of the directions made in Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Karamchari Sanghs case. As both these appeals raise a common contro versy and are based on identical facts, as such thay are being disposed of by this common judgment. (2) In D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 816 of 1995, writ petitioner Bala Ram was appointed as a Driver on work-charge basis at the salary of Rs, 20/.- per day on22-2-88 initially for a period of three months. He joined his duties on 28-2 88 and is working on this post with the appellants since 28.2.88. In D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 877 of 1995, writ petitioner Kanhaiya Lal was appointed as the Electrician on 16-4-84 on daily wages basis at the salary of Rs.11/-per day and he joined the duties, in pursuance to the order Annexure1 dated 16-4-84, on 24- 4-84 and since then he is continuing on that post and is in the service of the appellants. During his Service tenure he was subjected to various transfers. The amount of daily wages paid initially @ Rs.11/- per day has been enhanced fromtime to time and at the time of filing the writ petition, he was getting Rs.46/- per day. (3) The grievances of the petitioners are that though they were discharging the duties of the Driver and Electricion since 1988and 1984 respectively, but neither they have been paid the salary in the regular pay scales applicable to them nor their cases have been considered for regularisation. (3) The grievances of the petitioners are that though they were discharging the duties of the Driver and Electricion since 1988and 1984 respectively, but neither they have been paid the salary in the regular pay scales applicable to them nor their cases have been considered for regularisation. The contention of the State and its Functioners, in the reply, was that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages basis and no regular posts are available with the respondents, therefore, the petitioners are neither entitled for the salary in the regular pay scale nor are they entitled for regularisation of their services on account of non-availability of the permanent posts. (4) The learned Single judge, by his Judgment dated 26-5-95 allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, as stated above. It is against these judgments that the appellants have preferred these appeals. (5) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that (i) the appointments given to the petitioners were purely on daily rated basis and, there- fore, they are not entitled for the pay in the regular pay scale applicable to the posts of Driver and the Electrician norare they entitled for regularisation; and (ii) the controversy in volve d in An shkalin Samaj Kalyan Karamchari Sanghs case was different from the present constroversy and, therefore, the Judgment pa ssed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set-aside as the learned single Judge has wrongly applied the ratio of that case. Learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioners), on the other hand, has supported the Judgments passed by the learned Single Judge. (6) We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties . (7) The frist question which requires consodieration in the present cases is : whether respondent Bala Ram and Kanhaiya Lal (writ petitioners in the respective writs) are entitled for the regular pay scale applicable to the posts of Driver and the Electrician, respectively ? It is not in dispute that both of them were appointed on daily wages basis. Bala Ram is discharing the duties of the Driver on work- charge basis while Kanhaiya Lal is discharging the duties of Electrician on daily rated basis. Their discharging the duties of Driver and Electrician are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that both of them were appointed on daily wages basis. Bala Ram is discharing the duties of the Driver on work- charge basis while Kanhaiya Lal is discharging the duties of Electrician on daily rated basis. Their discharging the duties of Driver and Electrician are not in dispute. The only dispute is that since they were appointed on daily wages basis and not against the regular vacancies and even today no regular post of driver or electricion is available with the appella- nts, therefore, they cannot be granted the pay in the regular pay scale of the posts of Driver and the Elctrician. (8) The doctrine of `equal pay for equal work came-up for consideration before the Apex Court in various cases including the cases on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties. We would, now, like to consider the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. The applicablility of the doctrine of `equal pay for equal work to the persons employed on daily wages basis,came-up for consideration before the Supreme Court in : Surinder Singh and another vs. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W. D. and others (2) and the Supreme Court held that :- `` The persons employed on a daily wage basis in the Centeral Public Works Department are entitled not only to daily wages but are entitled to the same wages as other permanent employees in the depart ment employed to do the identical work. In this connection, it cannot be said that the doctrine of ``equal pay for equal work is a mere abs- tract doctrine and that it is not capable of being enforced in a court of law. In this connection, it cannot be said that the doctrine of ``equal pay for equal work is a mere abs- tract doctrine and that it is not capable of being enforced in a court of law. The central Government, the State Government and likewise all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments that the principle of qual pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a court of law should ill-come from the mouths of the State and State Undertaking." (9) In : Bhagwan Das and others vs. State of Haryana and other (3) the applicability of the doctrine of `equal pay for equal work in the light of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India with respect to the persons appointed on temporary basis, came-up for consideration before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, in para 13 of the judgment, held that :- ``When the duties and functions discharged and work done by the supervisors appointed on regular basis and those appointed on temporary basis in the education department are similar, the fact that the scheme under which temporary appointments are made is a temporary scheme and the posts are sanctiond on an year to year basis ha- ving regard to the temporary nature of the scheme cannot bea factor which could be invoked for violating ``equal pay for equal work doctrine. Whether appointments are for temporary periods and the Schemes are temporary in nature is irrelevant once it is shown that the nature of the duties and functions discharged and the work done is similar and the doctrine of ``equal pay for equal work is attracted. The applicability of the doctrine of `equal pay for equal work and confirmation of the service with respect to daily rated workers, again came-up for consideration before the Supreme Court in : Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (4)and the Supreme Court held :- ``.... Once the appointments of petitioners were made on daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. Once the appointments of petitioners were made on daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. It can be said that three years experien- ce, ignoring artificial break in service forshort period/periods created by the management, in the circumstances, would nr duggivirnt for Vongirmstion. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of the three years period. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to equal pay at par with the persons appointed on regular basis to the similar post or discharge similar duties, and are entitled to the scale of pay and all allowances revised from time to time for the said posts. (10) In Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union vs. Union of India and others (5) the status of the doctrine of `equal pay for equal work was considered by the Supreme Court and it was held :- `` Equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the Constitution as a fundamental right but in view of the Directive Principles of State Policy as contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitution``equal pay for equal work has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equal pay for equal work and providing security for service by regularising casual employment within a reasonable period has been accepted by the supre- me Court as a constitutional goal to our socialistic pattern. It has ceased to be a Judge made law as it is the part of the constitutional philosophy which ensures a welfare socialistic pattern of a State providing equal opportunity to all and equal pay for equal work for similaraly placed employees of the State. The Supreme Court has zealously enforced the fundamental right of equal pay for equal work in effectuating the constitutional goal of equality and social Justice.Therefore the principles of equal pay for equal work even in an establishment which is an instrumentality of a State is applicable to its full vigour. The Supreme Court has zealously enforced the fundamental right of equal pay for equal work in effectuating the constitutional goal of equality and social Justice.Therefore the principles of equal pay for equal work even in an establishment which is an instrumentality of a State is applicable to its full vigour. (11) In : State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh and another (6), the applicability of the principle of `equal pay for equal work again came-up for consideration before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held :- `` It is an admnistrative procedure that creation of a post is a condition for filling up the post on permanent basis. The exigencies of the administration and the need for the creation of number of posts are matters of executive policy by appropriate government. It is stated in the Special Leave Petition filed in this Court that during the examina tions conducted by the Bord, when the exigencies demand for doing manual work like lifting of bundles, pasting of envelopes and shifting of answer books etc., the daily wagers are engaged and a sum of Rs. 25/- per day was being paid as fixed by the District Magistrates of Allahabad under the Minimum Wages Act. Unless the posts are crea- ted, they are not entitled to be fitted in to any regular post. The performance of the manual duty may be like the duty of regular class IV employees. However, they are not entitled for the payment of equal wages so long as there are no posts created in that behalf. We can understand that if there are vacant posts available in Class IV and they are filled up by appointing them to these posts on daily wages performing the same duties of regular employees, perhaps there may be justification for issuing directions for regularisation of their Serrices according to rules and payment of the salary to the post to which they are fitted. But in view of the fact that no posts are created or existing, we cannot uphold the direction issued by the High Court to pay equal wages or to regularise their Services ." (12) The principle of law discernable from the judgments of the Supreme Court, referred above, is that the doctrine of `equal pay for equal work, in view of the Directive Principles of State Policy, has assumed the status of Fundamental Rights in the service jurisprudence and it can be enforced only where the duties and functions discharged and the work done by the temporary or work- charge employees is the same with that of the persons appointed on a regular basis. The principle of `equal pay for equal work cannot be applied in a mathematical way. It, also,cannot be denied to the persons entitled for that to find-out the similarity by a mathematical formulae. If there is a reasonable similarity in the nature of work, performance of duties, qualification and quality of work performed by both the sets of the persons, then this benefit cannot be denied to the persons like the petitioners merely on the ground that they were working on temporary basis though for the last seven-eight years. (13) It is not disputed by the appellants in the reply to the writ petition that respondent Bala Ram is discharging the duties of the Driver and Kanhaiya Lal is dischaging the duties of Electrician, rather it has been admitted by the appellants in their reply to the writ petition. In the case of Bala Ram it has been stated that though he is discharging the duties of the Driver but he cannot be regularised be- cause no post of regular drver is available. In the case of Kanhaiya Lal, the appellants, in their reply to para 5 of the writ petition (at page 30) have admitted that the work of Electrician is being taken from the petitioner from November,1989, for which, as per the relevant Rules, the daily wages payable to a daily rated Electrician has been Paid to him. In this view of the matter, Bala Ram is discharging the functions of the Driver since 1988 and Kanhaiya Lal is discharging the functions of the Electrician since 1989. In this view of the matter, Bala Ram is discharging the functions of the Driver since 1988 and Kanhaiya Lal is discharging the functions of the Electrician since 1989. The work, duties and functions discharged by the respondent-petitioners are the same as are being discharged by the regularly appointed Driver and Electricians and the responsibilities assigned to them are the same. They are, therefore, entitled for the minimum pay in the regular pay scale for the posts of Driver and the Electrician. The learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in awarding the minimum pay in the regular pay scales of the posts of Driver and Electrician to the petitioner -respondents. (14) The next question which requires consideration is : whether respondent -petitioner Bala Ram and Kanhaiya Lal are entitled for regularisation of their services ? The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions, directed the appellants to consider the cases of the writ petitioners for regula risation on the posts of Driver and Electrician, respectively, in the light of the judgment given in Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Karamchari Sanghs case. In that case the learned Single Judge directed the respondents as under :- `` So far as regularisation is concerned, the cases of all such employees, who have put-in service for five years or more, shall be immediately taken-up for consideration and regularisation and the Scheme for regularisation of their services shall be framed and put into effect within a period of six months from today. The scheme for regularisa tion of employment of Suchemployees, who have not completed five years service, shall, also, be framed within a reasonable time by the Government." (15) The direction given by the learned Single Judge are in accordance with the Work Charage Rules applicable to the writ petitioners in the prersent case, also. They are ,also, governed by the Work-charge Rules. Their services are, also, to be regularised in accordance with the provisions of the Work-charge Rules, for which the directions have been given by the learned Single Judge. They are ,also, governed by the Work-charge Rules. Their services are, also, to be regularised in accordance with the provisions of the Work-charge Rules, for which the directions have been given by the learned Single Judge. Though in the case: Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Karamchari Sangh, the case under consideration before the learned Single Judge was of the employees working as Cook and Chowkidar in the hostels for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes run by the Social Welfare Department of the State Government but the direction given therein are in relation to the Work-charge Rules which applies to the present respondent- petitioners, also. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the principles enunciated in Anshkalin Samaj Kalyan Karamchari Sanghs case are not applicable to the cases of the petitioner- respondents, is bereft of any substance. The writ petitioners, who are working as the Driver and Electrician with the appellants since 1988 and 1989, respectively, are entitled for consideration of their cases for regularisation of their services under Work-charge Rules and if any direction has been given by the learned Single Judge in accordance with the Rules, then that does not require any interference. (16) It will not be out place to mention here that the appeal preferred by the State in Anshkalin Samaj of Kalyan Karamchari Sangh s case was dismissed and in an S.L.P. filed by the State, the State produced before the Apex Court a Scheme for regularisation prepared in accordance with the directions, which was accepted and the S.L.P. was disposed of in the light of the Scheme prepared by the State of Rajasthan. The judgments, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Additional Advocate General are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable to the present cases. (17) In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are hear by dismissed .