JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr. Sabir Ali, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 2. Through the instant writ petition the petitioners pray for writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to regularise their services on the post held by them and pay them regular pay scale, after quashing the impugned order dated 21-5-2004 passed by the opposite party No. 1, rejecting the representation of the petitioners for their regularisation, which has been added by way of amendment in the writ petition. 3. The petitioners were engaged as daily wagers in 1995 and are working as such, but they have not been regularized so far, although vacancies for the post of Class-IV still exist and even juniors to them have already been regularized, which is clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. In counter-affidavit, it has been denied that the petitioners were ever appointed; rather they were engaged as daily wagers on the exigency when arose under certain Scheme and are being paid wages as prescribed by the State Government. Rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed controverting the facts averred in the counter-affidavit. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on several decisions rendered by the High Court as well as by the Apex Court. In the case of Bimal Chand Pandey and another v. C.P.W.D., U.P. Lucknow and others, reported in 2000 (2) HVD Page 507, wherein a Division Bench of this Court in para 4 has observed as under: “In our opinion, when a person is appointed on daily wage or on temporary basis then the authority concerned must make up its mind within two or three years of the appointment whether to confirm the said employee or terminate his service if he is incompetent, but keeping a person on temporary or on daily wage basis for a long period is arbitrary and not justifiable. Admittedly the appellants are doing the same work as regular employees. Hence in our opinion they are entitled to get the same salary as regular employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work and they are also entitled to be regularized. Moreover, there is discrimination against the petitioner since similarly placed persons have been regularized and hence Article 14 of the Constitution is being violated.” 6. Hence in our opinion they are entitled to get the same salary as regular employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work and they are also entitled to be regularized. Moreover, there is discrimination against the petitioner since similarly placed persons have been regularized and hence Article 14 of the Constitution is being violated.” 6. In this view of the matter the petitioners are fully eligible for their regularisation under the U.P. Government Regularization of the Daily Wages Appointment on group ‘D’ post Rules, 2001, as they have completed more than ten years of service. 7. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21-5-2004 passed by opposite party No. 1, is quashed and the authority concerned is directed to regularize the petitioners services and pay them minimum of the pay scale for the post of Class IV, within a period of one month from production of a certified copy of this order. Petition allowed. ————