JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for two reliefs, viz., equal pay for equal work and for considering the regularisation of the petitioner on the post on which he is working for the last ten years. 2. Petitioner was appointed on 24.12.80 as Chowkidar cum Helper and his designation was changed as Beldar subsequently and on 24.12.84 he was asked to work as a Time-keeper with the respondents and claims that he is entitled to receive the salary in the minimum regular pay scale of the post of Time-keeper and further entitled to be considered for regularisation on the said post. 3. Heard Mr. M.S. Sighvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vimal Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It is evident from various certificates filed with the petition that the petitioner has been asked by the respondents' Authority to work as Time-keeper and his name has been placed in the list of persons to be considered for regularisation on the post of Lower Division Clerk. Mr. Vimal Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents, could not point out as to how the certificates issued by the respondents authorities are not correct. However, his submission is that merely because he has been asked to work as a Time-keeper, he is not entitled to be considered for regularisation on the post of Time-keeper or to be given the pay in the regular pay scale of the said post because he had not been appointed initially as a Time-keeper. 5. The services of the petitioner are governed by the Rules for Regulating Recruitment and Conditions of Service of the Work-charge Employees of the Public Works Department (B & R), including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurved Departments framed in 1964. Rule 4 of the said Rules provides that the appointment on work-charge basis shall be made either by promotion or by direct recruitment and the promotion shall be made in accordance with the rules framed by the Head of the Department. Rule 7 of the said Rules provides for maintaining the Seniority List of each category in each Unit for the purpose of promotion as well as for retrenchment. Rule 34 provides for display of the said Rules in Hindi or English at the conspicuous places and on the Notice Board in the Office. 6. Rule 7 of the said Rules provides for maintaining the Seniority List of each category in each Unit for the purpose of promotion as well as for retrenchment. Rule 34 provides for display of the said Rules in Hindi or English at the conspicuous places and on the Notice Board in the Office. 6. Part II of the Rajasthan Work-charge Code contains the further details of procedure to fill up various vacancies wherein the post of Time-keeper is to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment. The pay scale of the post of Time- Keeper has been given in Part III of the said Code and it is Rs. 950-1680/- though the pay scale of the post of Beldar is Rs. 750-940/- as provided in the said Part. A notification issued on 12.12.1989 under the Rajasthan Subordinate Office Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1957 provides that the incumbent who has completed two years service and has qualified the High School/Secondary School/Praveshika Examination shall be considered by the Selection Committee for appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 50% posts lying vacant as on 1.4.1988. 7. Thus, it is clear that the posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and it is also, admitted that the petitioner has been working on the post of Time-keeper since 1988 though he is being paid the salary of the post of Beldar. 8. This Court has considered this issue while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2424/1992, Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan decided on 21.1.98, wherein after placing reliance on various judgments of this Court, particularly in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2110/1993, Giriraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 8.10.97 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 905/1995, Prem Singh Sodha v. State of Rajasthan and held that in such a case if a Beldar is doing the work of Lower Division Clerk/Time-keeper/Driver, he shall be entitled for the salary in the regular pay scale of the post on which he is working and is further entitled to be considered for regularisation on the said post, particularly in view of the fact that the post had to be filled-up 100% by direct recruitment and it is not a promotional post. In these cases where the persons are appointed initially as daily-wagers and there is no provision of filling-up the posts by inviting applications etc., it cannot be held by any means that his initial entry was by back-door. 9. Similarly, this Court decided S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1472/1989, Ramwat Ram v. State of Rajasthan on 29.8.97, wherein reliance had been placed on various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, particularly Khagesh Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration, AIR 1996 SC 417 : 1996 AllLJ 82 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that casual workers/daily wagers who have been in continuous service for several years, are entitled for regularisation, for the reason that in such a case there can be no justification in making distinction between the temporary/ad hoc employees and daily-wagers/casual workers who had been allowed to work for several years. Even if it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation he can definitely ask for equal pay for equal work under the mandate of the provision of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1995 Suppl.(4) SCC 513 and State of Haryana v. Ram Chandra, 1997 (5) JT 217 . In the said judgment this Court has observed as under:- "The Government and the Public Sector Undertakings, being model employers, cannot be permitted to adopt anti-socialistic approach. Paying the employees such a meagre wage as they could not be regularised for want of sanctioned post etc., would be arbitrary and, thus, violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The plea of acquiescence that the petitioner had accepted the employment on daily wages and cannot ask for more, is not available to the State instrumentalities, i.e., respondents, as its action is not justifiable, rather it is unwarranted and smacks of arbitrariness (Vide Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D., 1986 (1) SCC 639 ) ." 10. And it was held therein that the employee working for a long time is entitled for the pay in the minimum of the regular pay scale. And it was held therein that the employee working for a long time is entitled for the pay in the minimum of the regular pay scale. The said judgment in Rawat Ram (supra) was challenged by the respondents therein in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1110/1997, State of Rajasthan v. Rawat Ram, which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 17.1.88 by a speaking and reasoned judgment and the Division Bench distinguished the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, 1996 (11) SCC 77 and State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar, 1997 (3) SCC 63, wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not available where there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organisations or even in the same organisation. There may be differences in educational or technical qualifications which may have a bearing on the skill of the employees, there may be different modes of recruitment etc. 11. In Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Krishan Bhandari, 1996 (11) SCC 348 , it has been held that the doctrine of parity in employment is inapplicable when the alleged discrimination is between employees of two different authorities functioning as a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In Associate Bank Officers' Association v. State Bank of India, 1998 (1) SCC 428 the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the claim of the petitione association for 'equal pay for equal work' as their counter-part in State Bank of India on the ground that their pay scales had been fixed on a settlement reached by negotiation. The Apex Court observed as under:- "The doctrine is designed to correct irrational and inexplicable pay differentiation which can be looked upon as discrimination against an employee or a given set of employees ........... Mere difference is not discrimination." 12. The case of the present petitioner gets further fortified by various other judgments of this Court, particularly in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2162/1992, Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 1.2.93, which had been confirmed and approved by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 175/1993, State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar, decided on 4.5.93. 13. 13. It is true that such a benefit cannot be extended where the post, on which an employee is allowed to work and seeks regularisation and grant of salary in the minimum regular pay scale, is to be filled up by following some procedure provided under the Recruitment Rules or to be filled up by promotion. In that case, his continuation on the said post would be de hors the statutory rules. The Court cannot issue direction in such a case either for regularisation or paying him salary in the minimum of the regular pay scale of that posts his continuation on the post is in flagrant violation of the statutory rules. If a particular post to be filled up by different modes of recruitment and lays down different eligibility of education qualification etc., then such an employee may not be entitled of the mandate contained in the provisions of Articles 39(d) of the Constitution of India (Vide Jasmer Singh (supra); Surinder Kumar (supra); Sita Devi v. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC 2764 , State of U.P. v. Ramashre Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 118 , State of M.P. v. Pramod Bharti, 1993 (1) SCC 539 ; State of Haryana v. Rati Bala, 1997 (1) SCC 267 ; Chandigarh Administration v. Amita Sood, 1995 Suppl.(3) SCC 613 and Gabriel Sewar Farnandiz v. State of Karnataka, 1995 Suppl.(1) SCC 149. 14. Thus, in view of the above, where the post of Time-Keeper is to be filled up by direct recruitment and in allowing the petition to work on the said post, there is no violation of the statutory rules, the petitioner is held entitled for the payment of salary in the minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of filing of this writ petition i.e., January 1, 1990, and he shall also, be entitled for consequential benefits. He is further held entitled to be considered for regularisation on the said post. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears etc. and consider his case for regularisation strictly in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment and order. 15. The writ petition stands allowed with the above observations. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed.