TARUN AGARWALA, J. The controversy involved in all the writ petitions are common and are therefore, being decided together. For facility and for convenience the facts in writ petition No. 36153 of 1999 is being considered. 2. The petitioner was appointed on a daily wage basis on 1-3-1975 and was promoted to the post of a Work Supervisor w. e. f. 1-3-1983 on a daily wage basis. Since then the petitioner is continuously working on daily wages basis and his services has not been regularised. The union of the petitioner made an attempt for regularisation of the services of the petitioner and others which resulted in two settlements dated 17-4-1989 and 21-4-1981 in which the respondents admitted that the petitioner having worked continuously since long was liable to be regularised. The settlement contemplated that the persons who have completed five years on 1-4-1987 and those persons belonging to he Scheduled Caste who have completed five years of service as on 1-4-1989 are entitled for regularisation. The petitioner further alleged that a seniority list was taken out in which the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 5. Inspite of the settlement, the services of the petitioner has not been regularised and thereafter the union of the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40929 of 1997 seeking a direction for the regularisation of the daily wagers. This writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 15-12-1997 directing the Corporation to decide the representations with regard to the regularisation within three months. It transpires that the Corporation disposed of the representation on ground that those persons who had been engaged as work supervisors upto 1-3-1978, their services have been regularised and persons engaged as work supervisor after 1-3-1976 would be regularised as and when the vacancies are available and also on the basis of the seniority list. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition praying that he has been working since 1-3-1976 and therefore, is entitled to be regularised in the service of the Corporation. 3. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The respondent Corporation in their counter affidavit has admitted the claim of the petitioner. 3. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The respondent Corporation in their counter affidavit has admitted the claim of the petitioner. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner had been working on a daily wage basis since 1-3-1975 and that a settlement had taken place to regularise the services of those workers on daily wage basis who had completed five years of continuous service. The respondents have also admitted that the name of the petitioner was placed at SI. No. 5 of the list of eligible employees for regularisation as on 20-7- 1991. The respondents have also admitted that persons engaged as Work Supervisor upto 1-3-1978 have been regularised. The learned counsel; for the respondents submitted that the persons appointed as Work Supervisors after 1-3-1978 have not been regularised as they were out of the zone of consideration and were, therefore, not eligible for regularisation. It was further submitted that the petitioner would be considered for regularisation as and when vacancies are available and are filled as per the seniority list. Learned counsel for the respondents orally submitted that there are no post available and that until and unless the posts are created and sanctioned by the State Government, the respondents Corporation are unable to process the cases of regularisation of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. 5. It is clear that the petitioner is performing the same function and duty which is being performed by the regular workers. This fact has not been denied and in fact the respondents have admitted that the services of the petitioner would be regularised as and when the vacancy occurs. It is admitted that the petitioner has been working since 1975 on daily wages continuously. 29 years have elapsed and the petitioner is still working as a daily wager. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the services of the petitioner could not be regularised as no post or vacancies exists could not, in my opinion, be a ground to continue the petitioner as a daily wager. 6. The question which has to be answered by the respondents is whether they can run their department by hiring daily wagers without giving them job security and without paying them the wages equivalent to that paid to the regular employees? 6. The question which has to be answered by the respondents is whether they can run their department by hiring daily wagers without giving them job security and without paying them the wages equivalent to that paid to the regular employees? The respondents are also called upon to answer the question, whether the employment of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons on daily wages for considerable long time on meager wages without regularising their services is unfair, arbitrary and unreasonable? The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that since posts/vacancies are not available, the case of the petitioner for regularisation could not be considered is not a ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before law and equal protection of the laws. It ensures fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in Government actions. Not only this, Article 38 of the Constitution places a legal obligation on the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by security and protecting the social order and that the State would strive to minimize inequality in income and status amongst individuals. Article 39 of the Constitution provides that the State shall direct its policy to secure that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means to livelihood and that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women. The purpose of the fundamental rights and the directive principles as enshrined in the Constitution of India is to create an egalitarian society to free all citizens from coercion or restriction by society and to make opportunity available for all. 7. The conditions of service are regulated by statutory rules which are subject to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The number of posts is fixed according to the requirement of work. In the present case, the fact that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons are working for the last 29 years indicates that there is a permanent requirement of work. The respondents being an agency of the State cannot take advantage of its dominant position and compel any worker to work even on a daily wage basis for years without providing an employment security as contemplated under Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India. The respondents being an agency of the State cannot take advantage of its dominant position and compel any worker to work even on a daily wage basis for years without providing an employment security as contemplated under Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are required to act as model employers and allowing the petitioner to work on daily wage basis for 29 years amounts to hostile discrimination being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such practice adopted by the respondents amounts to unfair labour practice. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondents invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130 , on the proposition that where the respondents had taken steps for regularisation of their ad hoc employees and every few years the order of regularisation was being issued, in such cases the Court should not interfere with the process of regularisation, specially when the cut of date had been fixed by the Corporation was neither unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is devoid of any merit. The respondents have not shown as to what steps they have taken for regularisation of the services for the past 20 years. The respondents have not stated anything as to what steps they have taken with the State Government for creation of new posts. The counter affidavit clearly indicates that they have washed their hands off from the process of regularisation, by merely contending, that the services of the petitioner would be regularised as and when the vacancy occurs. The conduct of the respondents is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory. It is not known as to how much time it will take for the petitioner to be enrolled in the regular cadre. The mere fact that the petitioner remains on ad hoc employee for the last 29 years is clearly arbitrary. Such action of the respondents is clearly deplorable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in Piara Singhs case (supra) held- "ordinarily speaking, the creation and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the Executive. It is the Executive again that lays down the conditions of service subject, of course, to a law made by the appropriate legislature. The Supreme Court in Piara Singhs case (supra) held- "ordinarily speaking, the creation and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the Executive. It is the Executive again that lays down the conditions of service subject, of course, to a law made by the appropriate legislature. This power to prescribe the conditions of service can be exercised either by making Rules under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution or (in the absence of such Rules) by 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 Rule 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. 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. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long the Court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularisation. " 9. Based on the aforesaid, it is clear that the petitioner is working since long for the last 29 years and is, therefore, entitled for regularisation. The action of the respondents in not regularising his service is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The action of the respondents in not creating extra post is also discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance up on a catena of cases wherein similar direction for regularisation has been passed by this Honble Court as well as by the Supreme Court. The action of the respondents in not creating extra post is also discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance up on a catena of cases wherein similar direction for regularisation has been passed by this Honble Court as well as by the Supreme Court. However, I need not cite those judgments as in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and a mandamus is issued to the respondent Corporation to place the requisite papers to the State Government for the creation of the post/posts within six weeks from today. The State Government will pass appropriate orders for creation of the posts within six weeks thereafter. The appointing authority upon receipt of the orders from the State Government creating the posts will pass consequential orders for regularisation of the petitioner in their service within four weeks thereafter. In the meanwhile the interim order granted by this Honble Court permitting the petitioner to continue in service and to pay him the current salary as payable to regular workers would continue. It is made clear that the entire process will be completed within four months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this judgment before respondent No. 1. In the circumstances of the case the petitioners are entitled to cost which is ordered at Rs. 2,000/-each to the petitioner which shall be paid by respondent No. 1 within the same period of four months. Petition allowed. .