Both the petitioners, who are economically downtrodden, were engaged by the respondent No.2 as daily rated worker in the year 1988, and since then they have been working in the office of the respondent No.2 at Agartala by rendering services as mechanic maintaining and repairing power tillers. Initially, they were paid wages @Rs.l9.50per day. This was gradually increased and presently they are getting Rs.37.50 per day. The respondent No.2 also deputed both of them for short duration training in repairing and maintenance of power tillers in Assam in the year 1992. Although they are discharging their duties sincerely, till today, they have not been absorbed against any permanent posts, whereas other employees engaged in similar work have been appointed against regular posts in the pay scale of Rs.970-2400. Thus they have been deprived of their right to get equal pay for equal work. To add to their miseries, the authority vide office Memo No.F.ll(16)/THCL/89/2436-43 dated 22.9.97 directed them to report for duty in their offices at Santirbazar and Kumarghat far away from Agartala. The contention of the petitioners is that they are not regular employees of the State and, as such, their posting at distant places is not sustainable in law. Further, their present earning is too meagre to enable them to maintain double establishment at two different places. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Govt. Advocate and traversed through the grounds taken in the counter-affidavit filed by the State. Their main contention is that new servicing centres opened at Kumarghat and Santirbazar are to be covered by the workers from the headquarters and as such, the petitioners have been asked to report there. According to the respondents, the order issued vide Annexure I does not contemplate transfer, but it is a placement of the petitioners at Santirbazar and Kumarghat to facilitate better and effective services to the cultivators of that area. 3. The question that calls for adjudication in this case is whether a daily rated worker can be asked to move from one place to another place and whether such order amounts to transfer. There cannot be any dispute that persons who are not in the regular employment of the State cannot be directed to move from one place to another place. There cannot be any dispute that persons who are not in the regular employment of the State cannot be directed to move from one place to another place. Although the word 'transfer' is not incorporated in the order issued vie Annexure 1, it otherwise attracts all the incidence of transfer as it includes physical movement of the incumbents from one place to another place coupled with change of the place of work and residence. In the opinion of this Court, the order communicated vide Annexure I, in the given context, appears to be unreasonable, arbitrary and harsh. The petitioners are very poor and they have been rotting under the State Govt. as daily wage earners from 1988 at a meagre wages of Rs.37.50 per day. Their removal from their present place of posting on any ground whatsoever will undoubtedly cause extreme hardship to them as well as the members of their families. Their continuance as daily rated worker since 1988 without absorption against permanent posts implies infringement of the basic human rights and destru­ction of the dignity of human labour. This is more so when we find that the works they discharge are perennial in nature and are essential to the Corporation. Instead of appreciating all these circumstances, the authorities ordered their movement to different places. Under no circumstances, this Court can vet such order. 4. As a result, the writ petition is admitted and allowed and the order dated 22.9.97 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure 1 is hereby quashed. However, this judgment shall not operate as a clog to depute them to Santirbazar and Kumarghat for short period with their consent till they are considered and employed permanently. 5. Before parting with the case, it is considered necessary to observe that since the petitioners have been rendering uninterrupted service to the State for the last 10 years and the nature and character of the works they discharge being perennial, their cases may be consiered by the State for permanent absorption against appropriate regular vacancies that suits their experience and qualification. Otherwise the system of employing daily rated workers on payment of insignificant wages to attend to the works which are perennial in nature will soon be relegated at par with 'bonded labour'. Otherwise the system of employing daily rated workers on payment of insignificant wages to attend to the works which are perennial in nature will soon be relegated at par with 'bonded labour'. In the interest of social justice, it is necessary that the State shall evolve a system to identify similarly situated cases and endeavour to absorb them against permanent posts.