JUDGMENT 1. - All these petitions have been filed for seeking direction to pay the minimum of the pay scale of Class IV employees and treat the petitioners as regular/permanent employees of the Department and further to quash Clauses 3 to 13 contained in the Agreement of their appointment. All the three petitions are identical involving the same question of law, thus, the same are disposed of by the common judgment treating Writ Petition No. 573/1998 as a leading case. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners had been employees of the Rajasthan Small Industries Ors. Limited and as the units where petitioners had been working, were closed, their services were terminated after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and all of them were paid the retrenchment allowances as provided under the Act. Large number of persons like petitioners were given an option of voluntary retirement and some of them had opted it and, thus, those who did not opt, stood retrenched. Petitioners preferred S.B.C.W.P. No. 186/1995, Rajasthan Laghu Udyog Spinning Mills Workers Union, Ladnu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , seeking the relief of absorption in other departments but as the petitioners were not entitled for absorption under any statutory rules, they could not get any relief and petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 1.9.97. The Government had earlier issued a Circular dated 24.12.94 for offering contractual employment for a period of five years on the terms and conditions incorporated in the Circular to the employees so retrenched. Petitioners accepted the said offer and entered into an agreement stipulating the said terms and conditions. Petitioners were appointed purely on contractual basis for a period of five years or completion of fifty - eight years, whichever is earlier, on the terms and conditions contained in the agreement vide order dated 5.7.1975 (sic 1995 ?). After enjoying the benefit of the said agreement and appointment for about two and half years, these writ petitions have been filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 3. Mr. After enjoying the benefit of the said agreement and appointment for about two and half years, these writ petitions have been filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 3. Mr. P.P. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that (i) petitioners cannot be deprived of their legitimate claim as provided under Article 30(d) of the Constitution and they are entitled for minimum of the pay scale of Class IV employees; (ii) they are entitled for regularisation on the posts as they are working thereon for more than two and half years; and (iii) the terms and conditions of the agreement, contained in Clauses 3 to 13, be quashed being oppressive and against the public policy. The relevant Clauses read as under: "(1) The contractual appointment will be considered by the State Government as compassionate measure and retrenched employees would be eligible for employment purely on contract basis; (2) The past services rendered in Industrial Ors. shall not be reckoned for any purpose in the present service of contractual appointment; (3) Initial appointment on contractual basis shall be for a period of five years or till the retrenched employee attains the age of fifty eight years, whichever is earlier; (4) Contract period may be renewed subject to the satisfactory working of the employee; (5) The contractual emoluments shall be fixed considering the last emoluments drawn by the retrenched employee. However, his emoluments shall not exceed the emoluments last drawn by the employee at the time of retrenchment; (6) The contract can be terminated by giving prior notice of one month from either side; and (7) Retrenched employee may be engaged on contract on an equal or lower post held by him before retrenchment. In case he is engaged on a lower post, his emoluments drawn prior to retrenchment shall be protected. 4. The aforesaid conditions provide that it is a contractual employment offered to petitioners purely on humantarian ground and they were not entitled in law for the same. If the offer is accepted, the emoluments last drawn before retrenchment shall be protected. Renewal of contract may be made provided the employee has rendered satisfactory service and emoluments may also be revised in case the contract is renewed. 5. It remains undisputed that the aforesaid terms and conditions had been followed by the State religiously and there has been no deviation on its part from the said terms. Mr. Renewal of contract may be made provided the employee has rendered satisfactory service and emoluments may also be revised in case the contract is renewed. 5. It remains undisputed that the aforesaid terms and conditions had been followed by the State religiously and there has been no deviation on its part from the said terms. Mr. Chaudhary has submitted that even in a compassionate employment like this, petitioners are entitled for equal pay for equal work and not paying the proper emoluments amounts to arbitrary action on the part of the State and it also violates the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 as well as the mandate of Article 39(d) of the Constitution. 6. This Court decided (1) Ramwat Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and another S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1472/1989, on 29.8.97 , wherein reliance had been placed on various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, particularly (2) Khagesh Kumar Vs. Inspector General of Registration & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 417 , 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 provisions of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (3) Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 513 ; and (4) State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Ram Chandra & Anr. AIR 1997 SC 2468 . 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. 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 and another Vs. Engineer - in-Chief, C.P.W.D. and another, 1986(1) SCC 639 ) ." And it was held therein that the employees working for a long time were entitled for the pay in the minimum of the regular pay scale. In (5) State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer Singh, 1996(11) SCC 77 , and (6) State of Haryana Vs. Surinder Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 2129 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work in 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. 7. In (7) Union Territory, Chandigarh Vs. 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 (8) Associate Bank Officers' Association Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 32 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the claim of the petitioner's 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 inexclible pay differentiation which can be looked upon as discrimination against an employee or a given set of employees...... Mere difference is not discrimination." 8. The Apex Court observed as under: "The doctrine is designed to correct irrational and inexclible pay differentiation which can be looked upon as discrimination against an employee or a given set of employees...... Mere difference is not discrimination." 8. It is settled law 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, continuation of the applicant 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 post as his continuation on the post is in flagrant violation of the statutory rules. If a particular post is to be filled-up by different modes of recruitment and lays down different eligibility of educational 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); (9) Sita Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2764 ; (10) State of U.P. & Ors. others Vs. Ramashyraya Yadav & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 1188 , (11) State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Pramod Bhartiya & Ors., 1993(1) SCC 539 ; (12) State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ravi Bala, AIR 1997 SC 2396 ; (13) Chandigarh Administration Vs. Amita Sood & Ors., 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 613 ; and (14) Gabriel Sarver Fernandies & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 1995 (Suppl) 1 SCC 149) . 9. In (15) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bibhas Chakravorty & Ors. (1997) 11 SCC 616 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has rejected a similar plea on the ground that the facts had been in dispute and the issue cannot be resolved in such a case under writ jurisdiction. 10. Similarly, in (16) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Nanda Kumar & Ors. (1997) 11 SCC 661 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, after placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments, particularly (17) Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&T Deptt. Vs. 10. Similarly, in (16) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Nanda Kumar & Ors. (1997) 11 SCC 661 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, after placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments, particularly (17) Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&T Deptt. Vs. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 122 ; (18) Jacob M. Puthuparmbil & Ors. Vs. Kerala Water Authority & Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 28 , and (19) National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors & Bearers Vs. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1617 , rejected the claim of 'equal pay for equal work' on the ground that the regular employees had been appointed entirely by a different recruitment mode. 11. In (20) State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh, AIR 1998 SC 303 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not always easy to apply and it cannot be applied where there are educational and technical qualifications prescribed, having bearing on the pay scales of the employees. Similar view has been reiterated in (21) Nain Singh Bhakuni & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 622 ; and (22) Chandreshwar Narain Dubey & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2671 . While applying the same principles in (23) State of Himachal Predesh Vs. P.D. Attri & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 217 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the States are not bound to provide for similar pay scales for similar work in the same department. 12. In (24) Government of India & Ors. Vs. Court Liquidator's Employees Association & Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 560 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the employees have been appointed following recruitment rules strictly in accordance with law by following a proper selection procedure, they may be entitled for the relief. 13. In (25) Chandigarh Administration Vs. Rajni Vali, (2000) 2 SCC 42 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the relief of parity in employment after holding that the petitioners therein were imparting the education and were doing the same duty which their counter - parts were doing in other educational institutions but the relief was based mainly on the basis of Articles 21, 41 and 45 of the Constitution considering that every child has a fundamental right to get the basic education. 14. 14. Most of the cases referred to above, where parity of employment has been granted by the Courts, had been the cases of daily wagers and for those persons who had been appointed at an initial stage and the employees had joined as their first employment. Petitioners' case is entirely distinguishable for the reasons that they had already served for more than two and half decades in the earlier employment and got retrenched strictly in accordance with law and obtained the retrenchment allowance. The scheme was framed only on compassionate ground to accommodate them for certain period by protecting their last drawn salary prior to retrenchment even if they were offered the post below the post held by them prior to retrenchment. Once the Scheme, framed on humanitarian grounds had been accepted by them without any protest, they are not entitled for parity in employment for the reasons that there is a basic difference in the mode of appointment of petitioners and regular employees and petitioners cannot be held eligible to be appointed on the said post in accordance with the recruitment rules. 15. It is next submitted by Mr. Chaudhary that petitioners are working for last five years, therefore, their services should be regularised. Mr. G.L. Khatri, learned counsel for respondents, has vehemently opposed this submission contending that all the petitioners before this Court had completed five years tenure and there is nothing on record to show that their contract has been renewed and if their employment has come to an end by efflux of time, such a relief cannot be granted to them after termination. The submission made by Mr. Khatri is full of substance and is fully fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (26) Himachal Pradesh Housing Board Vs. Om Pal & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 269 ; and (27) R am Chandra & Ors. Vs. Additional District Magistrate & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 183 . In fact, Mr. Chaudhary is not in a position to make a statement at the bar whether contract employment of petitioners has been renewed or not. However, admittedly, their term of contract employment has already expired. Thus, the issue is not worth entering into merit. 16. Vs. Additional District Magistrate & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 183 . In fact, Mr. Chaudhary is not in a position to make a statement at the bar whether contract employment of petitioners has been renewed or not. However, admittedly, their term of contract employment has already expired. Thus, the issue is not worth entering into merit. 16. Even otherwise, the issue of regularisation has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time and again and the law has been laid down in very clear terms in the cases, i.e., State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh & Ors. (supra); Jacob M. Puthuparambil (supra); (28) J & K. Public Service Commission etc. Vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1808 ; (29) Dr. A.K. Jain Vs. Union of India, 1987 (Suppl) SCC 497 ; (30) E. Ramakrishnan & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., 1996(10) SCC 565 ; and (31) Ashwani Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1628 ; and the ratio of all those judgments can be summarised to the extent that the question whether the services of certain employees appointed on ad hoc basis should or should not be regularised relates to the condition of service. This power to prescribe the conditions of service can be exercised either by making Rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in the absence of such Rules, issuing Rules/Instructions in exercise of its executive power. The Court comes into the picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights, statutory provisions, Rules and other instructions, if any, governing the conditions of service. The main concern of the Court in such matters is to ensure the Rules of Law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the Directive Principles of the Constitution. As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the Directive Principles of the Constitution. It is for this very reason it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for long. A persual of the authorities would show that appointments the as a rule to be made in accordance with statutory rules, giving equal opportunity to all the aspirants to apply for the posts and following the prevalent policy of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes. Whenever the employees are appointed on ad hoc basis to meet an emergent situation, every effort should be made to replace them by the employees appointed on regular basis in accordance with the relevant rules as expeditiously as possible. Where the appointment on ad hoc basis has continued for long and the State has made rules for regularisation, a regularisation has to be considered in accordance with the rules. Where, however, no rules are operative, it is open to the employees to show that they have been dealt with arbitrarily and their weak position has been exploited by keeping them on ad hoc for long spell of time. However, it is a question of fact whether in the given situation, they were treated arbitrarily. In Khagesh Kumar Vs. Inspector General of Registration, U.P. and others, AIR 1996 SC 417 , the Supreme Court did not issue direction for regularisation of those employees who had been appointed on ad hoc basis or on daily wages after the cut off date, i.e., 1.10.1986 as was mandatorily required by the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 and those who were not eligible under the said Rules were not given regularisation. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in (32) Inspector General of Registration & Anr. Vs. Avdash Kumar & Ors., (1996) 9 SCC 217 . The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in (32) Inspector General of Registration & Anr. Vs. Avdash Kumar & Ors., (1996) 9 SCC 217 . Moreover, the above referred cases further spell out that for the purpose of regularisation, various pre - requisite conditions are to be fulfilled, i.e., the temporary/ad hoc appointment of the employee should be in consonance with the statutory rules, it should not be a back - door entry. The service record of the petitioner should be satisfactory, the employee should be eligible and/or qualified for the post at the time of his initial appointment. There must be a sanctioned post against which the employee seeks regularisation and on the said sanctioned post, there must be a vacancy. Moreover, regularisation is to be made according to seniority of the temporary/ad - hoc employees. The regularisation should not be in contravention of the State Policy regarding reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes and other categories for which State has enacted any Act or framed Rules or issued any Government Order etc. 17. Similar view has been taken in (33) Union of India Vs. Bishamber Dutt, 1996 (11) SCC 341 ; and (34) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. U.P. Madhyamik Shikshak Parishad Shramik Sangh, AIR 1996 SC 708 . In the case of (35) State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ashwani Kumar, (1996) 1 SCC 773 , the Apex Court has held that if an employment is under a particular Scheme or the employee is being paid out of the funds of a Scheme, in case the Scheme comes to closure or the funds are not available, the Court has no right to issue direction to regularise the service of such an employee or to continue him on some other project, for the reason that "no vested right is created in a temporary employment." 18. In (36) C.S.I.R. & Ors. Vs. Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain, (2000) 4 SCC 186 , the Apex Court considered a large number of its earlier judgments and held that in a contractual employment where a person holds a tenure post, the appointment comes to an end automatically and the question of regularisation does not arise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court followed its earlier judgment in (37) Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070 . 19. In (38) State of Punjab Vs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court followed its earlier judgment in (37) Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070 . 19. In (38) State of Punjab Vs. Surinder Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1593 , the Apex Court dealt with a similar case and observed as under: "It is not contested that an instruction by the Education Department was issued, in pursuance of which appointments of the respondents in question were made.....It is also not suggested that the respondents accepted the terms set out in Annexure P/1 and P/2 under mistake. We, therefore, do not find any reason as to why the specific terms, on which the appointments were made, could not be enforced." 20. Similar view has been reiterated in (39) State of U.P. Vs. Dr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, AIR 1995 SC 768 ; and (40) Dr. L.M. Nath Vs. Dr. S.K. Kacker & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 848 . In such a case, formal termination is not required as the service comes to an end automatically by efflux of time. Petitioners cannot have any grievance on this count and the submissions made on their behalf are preposterious. In (41) Ram Nayan Shukla Vs. District Basic Education Officer, 1999 SCC (L/S) 632 , the Apex Court observed that where a fixed term appointment has been extended from time to time and lapsed on expiry of last term, no right accrues in favour of the employee to continue on the post. 21. As petitioners had been given appointment for a fixed tenure, they cannot plead for regularisation after expiry of the said period. 22. Mr. Chaudhary has submitted that the conditions incorporated in the agreement had been so oppressive and opposed to public policy that the same are liable to be struck down. 23. In (42) Central Inland Water Transport Ors. Ltd. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganuly & Ors. AIR 1986 SC 1571 , the Apex Court held that the oppressive conditions incorporated in the contract may be hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act and, therefore, being opposed to public policy, may be liable to be struck down by the Court. 24. Moreso, a Standing Order providing for termination for remaining absent for a particular period without holding inquiry has also been declared to be unenforceable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (43) Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Ors. Ltd. Vs. 24. Moreso, a Standing Order providing for termination for remaining absent for a particular period without holding inquiry has also been declared to be unenforceable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (43) Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Ors. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 682 ; (44) Gujarat State Road Transport Ors. & Anr. Vs. Mulu Amra, AIR 1994 SC 112 ; (45) D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industry Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259 ; (46) Scooters India Vs. Vijai E.V. Eldred, (1998) 6 SCC 549 ; and (47) Uptron India Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shammi Bhan, AIR 1998 SC 1681 . 25. If we examine the aforesaid conditions, as referred to above, none of them is so arbitrary or unreasonable/oppressive or opposed to public policy which may warrant a declaration by this Court to be invalid or unenforceable. The last drawn salary of the petitioners prior to retrenchment had been protected. Even if an employee is offered the post below the earlier post, he shall be entitled for the last drawn salary. Thus, none of them is liable to be quashed. 26. Thus, in view of the above, I find no force in the petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******