JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and also perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 24.8.2006 whereby Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45238 of 2006 of the appellant has been dismissed. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that pursuant to the order dated 29.3.1989 passed by the Secretary, Non Conventional Energy Development Agency, U.P. Lucknow, the petitioner-appellant was engaged on a sanctioned post of Peon on daily wage basis vide order dated 31.3.1989/1.4.1989 by the Pariyojna Adhikari, NEDA, Kanpur and since then he is continuously working in Class-IV on daily wage basis. It is further contended that since the post is duly sanctioned and for the last more than 15 years he is working, therefore, he is also entitled to get salary at the minimum of the regular pay scale applicable to Class-IV Employee. The respondents are acting arbitrarily by denying regular pay scale to the appellant and their action is in violation of fundamental right of equal pay for equal work. He further contended that the Hon’ble Single Judge has erred in law by dismissing the writ petition relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and others, JT 2006 (1) SC 19, since the aforesaid judgment has no application in his case. 3. In our view, none of the aforesaid submissions has any force. 4. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner-appellant was on daily wage basis without making any advertisement of the vacancy and without giving opportunity of right to consideration to all other eligible persons consistent with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-appellant is being paid minimum wages as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant that the petitioner-appellant is entitled for the minimum of the basic pay scale of the regular employee, is unsustainable since a regular pay scale is available to the persons, who are appointed regularly in accordance with the rules and after undergoing regular process of selection consistent with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. 6. The question as to whether the principles of equal pay for equal work and the minimum at the basic pay of the regular pay scale when applicable, has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Charanjit Singh, JT 2005 (12) SC 475 and in para-17 of the judgment it has been observed as under : “Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in the cases of Jasmer Singh, Tilak Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology and Tarun K. Roy lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment itself, in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is reproduced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is reproduced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities made a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matter where a writ Court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regard.” (emphasis added) 7. Earlier also the question of applicability of the scale of pay to a daily wager was considered in the case of State of Harayana v. Jasmer Singh and others, AIR 1997 SC 1788 , and it was held that daily rated workers cannot be equated with regularly appointed workmen for the purposes of their wages. They are not selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. They are not required to possess qualifications prescribed for regular workers. Also other eligibility qualification prescribed under the rules for regular appointments are neither applicable nor required while engaging a person on daily wage basis. The quality performed by such persons cannot be equated being different in educational or technical qualifications, which may have a bearing on skill, which the holders bring to their job although their designation may be the same. It was clearly held in para-11 of the judgment that a daily wager neither can be equated with regular workers for the purposes of wages nor can claim minimum of the regular pay scale of the regularly employed persons. It was clearly held in para-11 of the judgment that a daily wager neither can be equated with regular workers for the purposes of wages nor can claim minimum of the regular pay scale of the regularly employed persons. Again in the case of State of Haryana and another v. Tilak Raj and others, 2003 (6) SCC 123 it was held that the scale of pay is attached to a definite post and since a daily wager does not hold a post, therefore, salary in a scale of pay to a daily wager cannot be claimed. It was also observed that the respondent workers cannot be said to hold any post to claim even a comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. 8. Recently a Constitution Bench has considered the question of applicability of regular pay scale and also whether a daily wager can be treated at par with the regularly selected employees. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Apex Court in para-48 observed as under : "It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the concerned department on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled.“ 9. The same view was taken by one of us (Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) in the case of Shekhar Shukla v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (1) UPLBEC 580 wherein after considering the law laid down on the subject it has been held that the persons engaged on daily wage or temporary basis without undergoing a regular process of selection are not entitled to claim equal pay for equal work at par with the regularly selected employees. The same view has been reiterated by this Bench in the case of Nepal Singh v. Nideshak, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow and others, 2006(2) ADJ 123 (DB). 10. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner-appellant in all respects, namely, process of recruitment, qualification and other conditions of service is equally placed with a regular employee in order to attract the principles of equal pay for equal work or even to claim regular salary or minimum of the regular pay scale. 11. 10. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner-appellant in all respects, namely, process of recruitment, qualification and other conditions of service is equally placed with a regular employee in order to attract the principles of equal pay for equal work or even to claim regular salary or minimum of the regular pay scale. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant thereafter contended that in some of the matters, some employees have approached the Lucknow Bench of this Court, wherein certain directions were issued to consider their case for payment of minimum wages in the minimum of pay scale at the basic pay of the regular pay scale, pursuant thereto the authorities have granted higher wages to those persons, who have approached the Court, on the basis of the direction given by the Hon’ble Court but the said benefit is not extended to the petitioner-appellant. We are not impressed with the submission. 12. It is well settled legal position that two wrongs will not make one right. The Apex Court in the Case of State of Haryana and others v. Ram Kumar Mann, 1997 (3) SCC 321 , has held that Article 16 has no application in the matter where the claim is based on parity for extension of a benefit of an illegal act. The Apex Court in Para-3 of the judgment observed : “A wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of the same order. As stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle him to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never make a right............” 13. The same view has been reiterated in a catena of cases, few of them are M/s Anand Buttons Ltd. etc. v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2005 SC 565 (Para-12) and Kastha Niwarak G.S.S. Maryadit, Indore v. President, Indore Development Authority, AIR 2006 SC 1142 (Para-8). 14. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (supra) the Apex Court expressed the view that when the Court is approached for relief by way of a writ of mandamus it has to ask itself whether the person before it had any legal right to be enforced. 14. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (supra) the Apex Court expressed the view that when the Court is approached for relief by way of a writ of mandamus it has to ask itself whether the person before it had any legal right to be enforced. A writ of mandamus can be issued compelling an authority to do something only when it is shown that the Statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the Statute or Rule to enforce it. In para-43 of the judgment, negativing the contention of the employees for issuance of such a mandamus, it was held that “This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the Government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State is a legal duty to make them permanent.” 15. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the special appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, before parting with the judgment, we direct the respondents to take steps for selection and appointment of the persons by advertising vacancy and making recruitment in accordance with the rules, if sanctioned posts are available and regular recruitment has not been made on those posts and only daily wage or temporary employees are continuing. This exercise shall be done expeditiously. Appeal Dismissed. ———