JUDGMENT 1. - The grievance of the petitioner as unfolded by this writ petition briefly stated is that he was appointed as daily wage employee in services of the Executive Engineer (Irrigation Division) District Jhalawar, Rajasthan (Respondent No. 3), w.e.f. 11.6.1981. He was declared semi-permanent while discharging the duties of L.D.C. as on 12th of March, 1986. Thereafter on 21.12.1985, the Land Acquisition Officer, Jhalawar, sent a communication to respondent No.3, that ever since his appointment as daily wager w.e.f. 11.6.1981, the petitioner was discharging the duties of Lower Division Clerk. He was entitled to be regularised in the service on the said post and was also entitled not only for the pay fixation but also the arrears as regards the admissibility of the pay scales for the post of Lower Division Clerk, the benefits of which the respondents had not released in favour of the petitioner as on the date of the presentation of the writ petition in this Court and had unlawfully denied to him contrary to the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B&R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "The Rules of 1964"). 2. It is relevant to mention that the another significant communication dated 7.2.1985, the respondent No.3, by way of initial correspondence dated 21.12.1985, to the Executive Engineer (Irrigation Department) District Jhalawar, had certified this fact that since the petitioner had been throughout performing the duties of Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, he was recommended for appointment on the post of Munshi/Amin, which is equivalent to the post of Lower Division Clerk as is borne out from the perusal of the record of this case. During the course of hearing, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that notwithstanding the undisputed fact that the petitioner has been throughout performing the duties equivalent to the post of Lower Division Clerk and there is no dis-similarity as regards the nature of work and the duties performed by the petitioner and that of the Lower Division Clerk, yet the respondents had discriminated in the matter of either regularising the petitioner on the said post as Lower Division Clerk or Amin, nor they had extended the consequential benefits as admissible to the petitioner in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for short "The Rules") issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Administrative Reforms, Group (VII) Govt. of Raj. and published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extra Ordinary, dated 20th of June, 1957. It is relevant to mention rule 7 of the rules 1957, which deals with the method of recruitment to the staff in various departments covered by the Rajasthan Public Works Department (B & R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic departments etc. as well as the work-charge employees of the P.W.D. who are covered by the rules of 1964 and such other departments of the State Govt. in the Department of Personnel as initially sanctioned and brought on regular establishment. 3. Rule 7:- Method of recruitment:- (1) Recruitment to the staff after the commencement of these rules shall be made:- (a) to the cadre of 'Stenographers' as Stenographer through the Qualifying Examination prescribed in Part III of Schedule I appended to these rules and in accordance with part V of these rules, (b) to the general cadre of the Lower Division Clerks from amongst those who pass or have passed the Junior Diploma Course. The remaining vacancies, if any, shall be filled in by a Competitive Examination to be conducted by the Commission : Provided that persons previously employed on daily-paid or casual work charged basis in a Department covered by the Rajasthan Public Works Department (B & R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department, Work-Charged Employees Service Rules 1964, or such Department as may be approved by the Government in the Department of Personnel, on such posts being initially sanctioned & brought on regular establishment, may be absorbed and appointed after screening by the Appointing Authority and only on posts which may be declared equivalent by the Government in the Administrative Department if they have put in atleast two years' service on the first date of January of the year in which work-charged posts are initially converted into regular ones, after adjudging their suitability in such manner as the Government may by an order generally or specially direct. Explanations-"work charged employees" have the same meaning as defined in the Rajasthan Public Works Department (B & R), including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department; Work Charge employees service Rules 1964. "Provided that persons previously employed as Nakedars (regular or work-charged in the Mines and Geology Department may be absorbed and appointed by the Appointing Authority on the posts of Lower Division Clerks on the posts initially sanctioned as such being converted into posts of Lower Division Clerk or such posts brought on to regular establishment, if they have passed Secondary Examination or equivalent Examination in relaxation of upper age-limit, type-writing speed and R.P.S.C. Examination prescribed under the rules." Explanation:-"Work-charged Employees" means any person actually employed for the execution and/or supervision of works both original and maintenance, supervision of departmental labour, Stores, Machinery and works etc. paid on daily or monthly basis." 4. From perusal of the above rule it is apparent that the petitioner who was a work-charged employee of the Irrigation Department of the State P.W.D. was actually employed for the execution/supervision of the works both original and maintenance supervision of Stores, Machinery and works etc. within the ambit of II Explanation to Proviso to rule 7 of the rules 1957. 5. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance upon the aforesaid rule 7 which was amended by the Department of Personnel, w.e.f. 21.12.1989, which is relevant to be discussed and clarified. within the ambit of II Explanation to Proviso to rule 7 of the rules 1957. 5. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance upon the aforesaid rule 7 which was amended by the Department of Personnel, w.e.f. 21.12.1989, which is relevant to be discussed and clarified. The State Govt. through the Department of Personnel brought out an amendment in the aforesaid rules by Notification No. F.3(6)DOP/A/II/80, dated 7.12.1989, whereby the following provision was inserted in rule 7:- "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these rules, persons employed on work-charged basis in Public Work Department/Irrigation (Indira Gandhi Nahar Board (including Indira Gandhi Nahar Board-Command Area Development), Department/Public Health Engineering Department, Ayurved Department and have put in at least two years continuous service as on 1.4.88 and have passed High School/or Secondary/Praveshika Examination of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or of a Board recognised by the Government may be absorbed once only on the post of L.D.C. on regular basis against the vacant posts of L.D.C. in their respective department to the extent of 50% of the total vacant posts of L.D.C. on 1st April, 1988, after adjudging their suitability by the Committee consisting of the following:- (1) Head of the Department or his nominee not below the rank of Additional Chief Engineer/Additional Head of the Department. (2) One Senior Officer not below the rank of Superintending Engineer nominated by the Chief Engineer. (3) Chief Accounts Officer/Senior Accounts Officer of the concerned department. The work-charged employees who are appointed as L.D.C. shall be made regular after passing the typing test to be held by the Appointing Authority at a speed prescribed in these rules within the period of one year from the date of such appointment." 6. (3) Chief Accounts Officer/Senior Accounts Officer of the concerned department. The work-charged employees who are appointed as L.D.C. shall be made regular after passing the typing test to be held by the Appointing Authority at a speed prescribed in these rules within the period of one year from the date of such appointment." 6. During the course of hearing, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from perusal of the above amendment the following aspects emerge for consideration of this Court; (a) That as on 1/4/1988, the concerned employee of the State or any of the branches or departments of the State P.W.D. should have completed minimum two years of continuous length of service; (b) should possess the minimum requisite educational qualification of High School/Secondary/Senior Secondary; (c) as on 1st April, 1988, the vacancies available for the posts of Lower Division Clerks which were due to be filled up should not exceed the prescribed sanctioned limit of 50 percent. 7. The above posts were to be filled from amongst the eligible candidates who possess the aforesaid qualifications pre-requisite for appointment to the post of L.D.C. and in my view since the petitioner possesses the aforesaid qualifications, and which fact has not been disputed by the respondents in their reply to the writ petition filed on the record of this case nor this fact has been disputed by the learned counsel representing the respondents, during the course of hearing by the learned counsel representing the respondents who have however, stated at bar that the petitioner could not be considered for entitlement of consequential benefits admissible for the post of L.D.C./Arvin, ever since his appointment as daily wager in the Irrigation Department of the State P.W.D. in view of the fact that the petitioner was given the additional work pertaining to disbursement of compensation to the claimants connected with the Bhim Sagar Dam Project, therefore, he is not entitled to claim regularisation in service of the department, nor he is entitled to the consequential benefits as admissible to the Lower Division Clerk performing the similar duties. From the perusal of the reply to the show cause notice filed by the respondents, it has further not been disputed that the petitioner was performing the same and corresponding duties as assigned to the Lower Division Clerks and he was also declared semi-permanent keeping in view the satisfactory progress in his work, his efficiency in service and also the nature of duties performed by him. It has further been stated by the respondents that keeping in view the aforesaid position, the services of the petitioner were regularised by having been declared semi-permanent w.e.f. 12.3.1986, on the post of Beldar instead of declaring him on the post of Lower Division Clerk. From perusal of para 6 of the reply to the writ petition, the respondents have not disputed this fact that it is on the recommendations of their own Executive Engineer, the petitioner was recommended for regularisation in service from the post of Bedlar to that of Munshi/Amin, keeping in view the Rajasthan P.W.D. (B & R) Regularisation Rules 1964, and hence, I am of the considered view that it is not open to the respondents now at this stage before this Court to take any stand, which would be contrary to what they have stated in their reply to show cause notice and further, I am of the view that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, is fully attracted to this case and since the petitioner has been performing the duties equivalent to the post of L.D.C./Amin, and having been regularised in service after having been declared semi-permanent against the vacant post of Beldar on 12th March, 1986, he is entitled to all consequential benefits as admissible to the post of L.D.C./Amin, on which post he has been continuously discharging his duties ever since his appointment and more particularly w.e.f. 12.3.1986, which is borne out from the record of the case. During the pendency of the writ petition, pursuant to the directions of this court, the petitioner had also filed an additional affidavit and placed additional documents on the record in support of his contentions advanced by him in the writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, pursuant to the directions of this court, the petitioner had also filed an additional affidavit and placed additional documents on the record in support of his contentions advanced by him in the writ petition. From perusal of para 5 of the said additional affidavit dated 22.8.1997, it is borne out that ever since his appointment, the petitioner had been discharging the duties of Lower Division Clerk had also raised his grievance to the department that notwithstanding the fact that he was regularly discharging his duties as Lower Division Clerk and persons junior to him who were declared surplus by the department were regularised and absorbed as Gram Sevak cum Secretary, which is equivalent to the post of Lower Division Clerk and hence the petitioner should not have been discriminated by the respondents qua other similarly placed employees. From the perusal of document dated 6.5.1997, which is an order passed by the Executive Enginner (Irrigation Department) Jhalawar, it is apparent that the respondents have not disputed this fact that as on 31.3.1985, the petitioner had rendered continuously and successfully discharged his duties on the post of Amin and was fixed in the pay scale of 880-1680 vide annexure-35 on the record in accordance with the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules 1987, though the fixation of the petitioner was done on the notional basis and past and consequential benefits have not been extended to the petitioner till date. 8. In support of his contentions advanced at bar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Apex Court reported in State of Haryana & anr. v. Ramchandra & anr., JT 1997 (5) SC 217 (Para Nos. 8, 12 to 20); K. Krishnamcharyulu & ors. V. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering & anr., 1997(3) SCC 571 (Para No. 4) and Indian Council of Agr. Res. V.A.N. Lahan, 1997(10) SCC 691 . 9. v. Ramchandra & anr., JT 1997 (5) SC 217 (Para Nos. 8, 12 to 20); K. Krishnamcharyulu & ors. V. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering & anr., 1997(3) SCC 571 (Para No. 4) and Indian Council of Agr. Res. V.A.N. Lahan, 1997(10) SCC 691 . 9. I have examined the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and in my view the same are fully attracted to the instant case on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and hence it is not open to the respondents to discriminate with the petitioner qua other similarly placed candidates keeping in view the fact that the nature of work was exactly of the same type as was done by the similarly placed employees who have been absorbed and regularised in services of the respondents and even on qualifications there is no distinction between the two sets of employees and I find no reason to draw a contrary view of the matter. 10. As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed, since the services of the petitioner have already been regularised on the post of Amin, which is equivalent to the post of Lower Division Clerk w.e.f. 31.3.1985, the respondents are directed to release the difference of pay as regards the arrears of the salary to which the petitioner is entitled on the post of Amin, for the period in dispute i.e. 31st March, 1989, till date of payment with all consequential benefits as admissible to him in accordance with rules. Keeping in view that the writ petition has been pending in this Court since 15.7.1991, the respondents are directed to release the consequential benefits as admissible as per the revised pay scale rules 1987 and 1989 and as further amended from time to time within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of this order positively, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum from due date till payment.There will be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******