JUDGMENT 1. - The petition has been heard finally.The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that the respondent No. 1 be directed to pay the petitioner regular pay scale as prescribed under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Service Rules (Revised Pay-Scale Rules revised from time to time) (for short `the Service Rules') since his initial appointment i.e. November 3, 1989 and to regularise his services on the post of driver lying vacant under the respondent No. 3. 2. Brief resume of the case is that the petitioner was initially came to be to appointed on the post of driver w.e.f. November 3, 1989 on temporary basis. Initially the petitioner was paid Rs. 21/- per day but subsequently, the rate of daily wage was revised to Rs. 28/- per day. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent did not regularise his services on the post of driver and pay him the regular pay scale as prescribed under the Service Rules. The other drivers who are similarly situated are being paid regular pay scale but the petitioner has been discriminated. The act of the respondents is, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 3. The respondents have submitted their reply to the writ petition with the averments that the State Government has not created or sanctioned any permanent post of driver for the truck allotted by the UNICEF, The petitioner was paid daily wages in conformity with the provisions of law as the petitioner was given appointment on daily wages. He was paid only for the days on which he attended the duty. The amount drawn for the payment to the petitioner was from the head `other expenses' as there was no sanctioned post and that is why the petitioner was appointed on daily wages. The respondents are bound by the orders of the State Government dated June 24, 1991 by which the appointments have been streamlined and are regulated by the conditions given thereunder. The petitioner cannot make any claim for regularisation or to invoke the provisions of the Service Rules. The petitioner is also not entitled for equal pay for equal work. 4. I have reflected over the rival contentions and have carefully scanned the material on record. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been working since 1989 till today with the respondents. The petitioner cannot make any claim for regularisation or to invoke the provisions of the Service Rules. The petitioner is also not entitled for equal pay for equal work. 4. I have reflected over the rival contentions and have carefully scanned the material on record. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been working since 1989 till today with the respondents. It has not been denied by the respondents that there is no vacant post of driver with the respondents 1 and 3. The petitioner, who has been regularly working as driver for a period of more than 10 years has right to be regularised in the service. He cannot be treated differently with that of all other drivers. The act of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioner and not paying him the regular pay-scale of driver prescribed under the Service Rules is, arbitrary and discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view what I have discussed here-in-above, I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services on the post of driver and to pay him regular pay scale as prescribed under the Service Rules. The respondents are expected to comply with the directions as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Cost is made easy.Writ Petition Allowed. *******