Prem Shanker Asopa, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to give him salary in the regular pay scale on the basis of principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ with the further relief of regularization of his services including benefit of bonus, leave, HRA etc. 2. Facts, in brief of the case, as per the petitioner, are that he was initially appointed on daily wages as Chowkidar in November, 1988. His services were initially terminated on 10.01.1991 and on reference. the said termination was declared illegal by the Labour Court vide its Award dt. 16.01.1994 with the direction to reinstate him in service, continuity of service and payment of back wages. The said Award was challenged by the respondent Rajasthan Financial Corporation (in short ‘the respondent Corporation’) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1959/1995 but without success and the compliance order was passed on 02.02.1999. Since then, the petitioner is continuously was working as Chowkidar and by now, he has completed nineteen· years of service but he is still continuing as daily wager. It is further stated in the writ petition that inaction of the respondent Corporation in not appointing the petitioner on permanent/regular basis on the post of Chowkidar and denial of pay on the principle of “equal pay for equal work’ is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also raised the grievance that similarly situated employees have been regularized but he has not been so regularized which is discriminatory and the same is contrary to the judicial pronouncements on the issue. 3. The respondent-Corporation has filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was never appointed in the establishment/cadre post of the respondent-Corporation. The respondent-Corporation has further submitted that daily wages are paid to the Chowkidars engaged on behalf of the Unit and such amount is debited in their account and no amount to such Chowkidars against pay is paid by the respondent-Corporation. Respondent-Corporation has further raised an objection that temporary/casual employment is ordinarily co-terminus with the Unit which is in possession of the respondent-Corporation till it is transferred. Respondent-Corporation has further raised an objection that temporary/casual employment is ordinarily co-terminus with the Unit which is in possession of the respondent-Corporation till it is transferred. It is further stated in the reply that the petitioner is not entitled to regularization on the post of Chowkidar as well as payment of regular pay scale as his services are not covered under the Rules and Regulations of the respondent-Corporation. 4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and repeated contents of the writ petition with the addition that he mostly worked as Class-IV employee but occasional performed the job of Chowkidar as per the directions of the respondent-Corporation. 5. On 16.01.2007 the respondent-Corporation was directed to disclose number of vacant posts of Chowkidar/Class-IV in response to which on behalf of the respondent-Corporation an additional affidavit dt. 24.01.2007 sworn by Mr. S.S. Agarwal, Manager (FR) has been filed wherein it has been deposed that the employees of the respondent-Corporation have been categorized in Category ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ out of which employees of Category ‘C’ of subordinate staff includes cadre of Jamadar, Daftari, Driver/Messenger and no vacancy is available in the cadre of Messenger in the regular pay scale as on date and 48 Messengers are in excess in the respondent-Corporation. It has further been deposed in the affidavit that there is no post in the name of Chowkidar/Class-IV in the establishment of the respondent-Corporation. 6. The petitioner has filed counter affidavit wherein he has submitted that Govind Prasad Thakur who was continuing as Peon died on 31.12.2005 and the said post is lying vacant. The petitioner has also mentioned name of Giriraj Prasad Sain who was appointed as Chowkidar and is going to retire in near future. The petitioner further deposed in the additional affidavit that the post of Peon/Class-IV cadre are filled from amongst the daily wager workmen and initially daily wager employees were employed and they were directed to serve as Helper or Chowkidar or as Peon at the office and after having served for some years they were made permanent/confirmed on the post of Class-IV. The petitioner then deposed that no name is called from the Employment Exchange or there is any procedure prescribed for recruitment of Class-IV employees in the Corporation and that Class-IV employees are made from amongst the daily wagers who are required to work either at office or as Chowkidar as per the directions of their Managers/Officers. 7. On behalf of the respondent-Corporation further counter affidavit dt. 07.03.2007 sworn by Mr. S.S. Agrawal, Manager (FR) has been filed wherein the fact of vacancy caused on account of death of Govind Prasad Thakore was not disputed and the fact of Giriraj Prasad Sain retiring from the post of Messenger in near future has also not been disputed. 8. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that even after completion of nineteen years’ of satisfactory service, non grant of the regular pay scale on the post of Class-IV, Messenger, Chowkidar is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India and principle of equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. He has also submitted that services of junior persons have been regularized but the petitioner’s service has not been regularized and the said action of the respondent-Corporation is discriminatory and arbitrary. Further submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Award dt. 16.07.1994 passed by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner was implemented by the respondent-Corporation in the year 1999 and since then the petitioner is continuing in service which clearly establishes the relationship of master and servant and his continuation for more than nineteen years pre-supposes existence of the work/post. Counsel for the petitioner has cited some judgments of the Supreme Court on the issue of equal pay for equal work as well as regularization but the same have been distinguished in the later judgments of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Bench judgments. 9. Submission of the counsel for the respondent-Corporation is that daily wager cannot be treated at par with a person in regular service on account of several factors-qualification, regular mode of appointment, quality of work and reliability. Mere fact of discharging similar nature of duties is not the sole decisive factor for grant of equal pay for equal work. Counsel for the respondent-Corporation cited several judgments but has laid much emphasis on para 10 of the judgment in State, of Haryana and Ors. Mere fact of discharging similar nature of duties is not the sole decisive factor for grant of equal pay for equal work. Counsel for the respondent-Corporation cited several judgments but has laid much emphasis on para 10 of the judgment in State, of Haryana and Ors. vs. Jasmer Singh and Ors., 1996(11) SCC 77 . Since the petitioner is not a regularly appointed employee against any cadre post, he is not entitled to the grant of regular pay scale. As regards regularization, submission of the counsel for the respondent-Corporation is that after the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 no Court can issue direction for regularization. 10. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the counsel for the parties. 11. Before proceeding to consider the case on merits, I would like to consider some of the objections raised by the counsel for the respondent-Corporation on maintainability of the writ petition. 12. The objection of no relationship of master and servant raised by counsel for the respondent-Corporation does not hold much water for the simple reason that the Award dt. 16.07.1994 passed by the Labour Court directing to reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity in service and back wages has been implemented in the year 1999 after the dismissal of writ petition. In such circumstances, it is not open for the respondent-Corporation now to dispute that the petitioner is not an employee of the respondent-Corporation and is an employee of the private Unit on the basis of mode of payment. No procedure has been placed on record for appointment of daily wager and further the fact of regularization of the daily wager in subordinate staff has also not been disputed. 13. The mode of payment of wages to an employee of the respondent-Corporation is immaterial because once a person becomes an employee of the respondent-Corporation, then he has a right to draw wages from the respondent-Corporation. Further, continuation of the petitioner for more than nineteen years as Chowkidar/Class IV pre-supposes existence of the work of the said post/post. Submission of the counsel for the respondent- Corporation is that in subordinate staff, the post of Messenger is equivalent to the post in the lowest pay scale and 48 Messengers are in excess in the Corporation. Further, continuation of the petitioner for more than nineteen years as Chowkidar/Class IV pre-supposes existence of the work of the said post/post. Submission of the counsel for the respondent- Corporation is that in subordinate staff, the post of Messenger is equivalent to the post in the lowest pay scale and 48 Messengers are in excess in the Corporation. In Annexure R-2 filed along with the affidavit dt. 24.01.2007 vacancy in the cadre of Messenger has been shown ‘NIL’ but there is no mention that Messengers are continuing in excess. Otherwise also, the respondent-Corporation has not placed any document on record in what manner they are in excess and what action the respondent-Corporation is going to take in respect of surplus staff. Therefore, there is nothing on record to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 14. Further objection of the respondent-Corporation is that the post of Chowkidar and Class IV is not in the establishment of the respondent-Corporation is also not believable for the reason that the Corporation is having offices in each District and in every such office the lowest post in the lowest pay scale is usually termed as Class IV and even if the respondent-Corporation has given name of Messenger to such lowest category of post, then also, the availability of the post has been established by the petitioner on account of death of Govind Prasad Thakur on 31.12.2005 and near future retirement of Giriraj Prasad Sain. Thus, it is concluded that the petitioner is an employee of the respondent-Corporation and post in the lowest category of office is available. 15. Now, I proceed to examine merits of the case. 16. Law on the issue of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has been diluted by the Supreme Court in the recent years and in one of the cases-State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 77 daily rated workers have not been granted regular pay scales simply on the ground that they are discharging the same nature of duties. In the said case the Supreme Court has considered the fact of qualification, mode of recruitment, liability of transfer, disciplinary action, etc. and denied even minimum of the regular pay scale of regularly selected employees. Para 10 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “10. In the said case the Supreme Court has considered the fact of qualification, mode of recruitment, liability of transfer, disciplinary action, etc. and denied even minimum of the regular pay scale of regularly selected employees. Para 10 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “10. The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have to fulfill the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their awares. Nor can they claim the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed.” 17. On the issue of regularization, the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi in para No. 53 has considered the cases of irregularly appointed persons of more than a decade and then direction was issued to consider their cases. Para 53 of the judgment reads as under: “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as, explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA, R.N. NANJUNNDAPPA, and B.N. NAGARJAN, and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of Courts or of Tribunals. The questions of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. The questions of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of Courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitment are undertaken to fill these vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” (emphasis supplied) 18. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Ors. vs. Desh Raj, (2007) 1 SCC 257 made distinction between illegality and irregularity by holding that an appointment which was made throwing all constitutional obligations and statutory rules to the winds would render the same illegal whereas irregularity presupposes substantial compliance with the rules. 19. In the instant case, no rule has been pointed out which has been violated by initially appointing the petitioner, therefore, the case of the petitioner is of irregular appointment and will be governed by the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (3) (supra). 20. This Court has also considered the aforesaid judgment on the issue of daily wages/ad hoc employees in Shrawan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4314/2002 and other similar nine writ petitions decided on 06.04.2007 and Smt. Chanda vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4334/1999 decided on 25.05.2007. 20. This Court has also considered the aforesaid judgment on the issue of daily wages/ad hoc employees in Shrawan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4314/2002 and other similar nine writ petitions decided on 06.04.2007 and Smt. Chanda vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4334/1999 decided on 25.05.2007. In the case of Smt. Chanda (supra), this Court after observing that no steps for framing the Scheme as one time measure has been taken by the State Government despite expiry of six months, as directed by the Supreme Court in para 53 of Uma Devi (3) (supra) which has resulted in denial of the regularization of daily wager, working in the State of Rajasthan, issued the following directions: “Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The State Government is directed to frame the scheme as one time measure as directed by the Supreme Court as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate orders, who has been irregularly appointed as per scheme, within a period of six months from today.” 21. It appears that the respondent-Corporation has also not framed the Scheme so far. Therefore, the only direction can be issued for framing of the Scheme for such employees and passing appropriate orders. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent-Corporation (who) would frame the scheme as one time measure as directed by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors. (supra) as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from today. * * * * *