JUDGMENT Hon’ble D.K. Arora, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give minimum of current revised pay scale to the petitioners in view of so long service rendered by the petitioners with the Department. 3. The necessary facts culled out from the pleadings of writ petition are as under : The petitioner No. 1, Arvind Pratap Singh was appointed on the post of ‘Meth’ on 21.10.2001 while petitioner No. 2, Ashok Kumar was appointed on 16.5.2002 on the post of ‘Beldar’ under Dying in Harness Rules and both are presently working in the office of opposite party No. 4 on daily wages/muster roll basis. 4. Grievance of the petitioners is that although they are discharging and performing duties of similar nature as of permanent employees but they are being paid wages fixed by the State Government which is not even equivalent to the minimum of pay-scale. The petitioners made several representations to the opposite parties requesting therein that their services should be treated in permanent nature and they may also be paid the same pay-scale which is being paid to similarly situated permanent employees but nothing has been done so far and they are still being paid daily wages. The petitioners have given last representation on 10.4.2009 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners’ fathers had rendered about 20 years continuous and regular service on work charge basis and since the petitioners had been appointed on compassionate ground, therefore, their appointment should have been treated as permanent but they are still been treated as daily wagers and are being paid daily wages. The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1999 (17) LCD 641, Ravi Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and others, in which it has been held that an appointment in Dying-in-Harness Rules has to be treated as permanent appointment otherwise if such appointment is treated to be a temporary appointment then it will follow that soon after the appointment the services can be terminated and this will nullify the very purposes of Dying-in-Harness Rules because such appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family on sudden death of bread earner. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on two interim orders passed by this Court, which provide that in case the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground under Dying-in-Harness Rules, he shall be paid minimum pay scale admissible to his cadre. 7. From perusal of writ petition and the annexure annexed thereto, it is evident that the petitioners in order to establish their claim filed two seniority list of daily wagers of category of Meth and Beldar respectively and from perusal of the same, it does not show that the petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground under Dying-in-Harness Rules. In other words, except the averments of the petitioners there is no other material on record to establish the fact that they have ever appointed under Dying-in-Harness Rules. Apart from this, it is admitted fact that fathers of the petitioners were working as work-charge employee only and they have never attained the status of regular employees. The learned counsel for the petitioners failed to place any provisions which provides for appointment of the dependents of the work-charge employee under Dying-in-Harness Rules. 8. The State Government in exercise of powers under the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed U.P. Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (here-in-after referred to as the Rules, 1974). The Rule 2 (a) of the Rules defines “Government Servant”, for ready reference the same is being reproduced as hereunder : “(a) ‘Government Servant’ means a government servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh who- (i) was permanent in such employment; or (ii) though temporary had been regularly appointed in such employment; or (iii) tough not regularly appointed had put in three years’ continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment. Explanation—’Regularly appointed’ means appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down for recruitment to the post or service, as the case may be.” 9. In view of the aforesaid definition, the fathers of the petitioners admittedly do not fall within the definition of “Government Servant” being work-charge employees and the provisions of Rules, 1974 does not apply in the petitioners’ case, therefore, they cannot said to be appointed under the provisions of Rules, 1974 on compassionate ground. 10. In view of the aforesaid definition, the fathers of the petitioners admittedly do not fall within the definition of “Government Servant” being work-charge employees and the provisions of Rules, 1974 does not apply in the petitioners’ case, therefore, they cannot said to be appointed under the provisions of Rules, 1974 on compassionate ground. 10. This Court without entering into the controversy regarding appointment of the petitioners confines to the question as to whether a mandamus can be issued to the opposite parties to give minimum of the current revised pay scale to the petitioners in view of long services rendered by them. 11. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different organisations, or even in the same organisation. The principle was originally enunciated as a part of Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39 (d) of the Constitution. In case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that this was a Constitutional goal capable of being achieved through Constitutional remedies and held that the principle had to be read into Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The same principle was subsequently followed for the purpose of granting relief in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637 and Jaspal v. State of Haryana, (1988) 3 SCC 354 . 12. With the span of time the issue was examined from different angles i.e. the difference of pay scale can be on the ground of decree of responsibility, reliability, confidentiality, education qualification, mode of recruitment etc. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harbans Lal v. Himanchal Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 459 , pleased to held that daily rated workmen were entitled to be paid minimum wages admissible to such workmen as prescribed and not the minimum in the pay scale applicable to similar employees in regular service, unless of course the employer had decided to make such minimum in the pay scale applicable to daily rated workmen. The same principle was reiterated in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary, (1995) 5 SCC 210 . 13. The same principle was reiterated in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary, (1995) 5 SCC 210 . 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Jasmer Singh and others, (1996) 11 SCC 77 , pleased to observed that daily wagers cannot be treated at par with the persons in regular service nor they can claim minimum of regular pay scale of regularly employed and if a minimum wages is prescribed for such workers, they will be entitled to it if it is more than what they are being paid. The paras-10 and 11 of the same read 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 fulfil 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 wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the regular pay scale of the regularly employed. 11. The High Court was, therefore, not right in directing that the respondents should be paid the same salary and allowances as are being paid to regular employees holding similar posts with effect from the dates when the respondents were employed. If a minimum wage is prescribed for such workers, the respondents would be entitled to it if it is more than what they are being paid.” In the case of State of Haryana and others v. Tilak Raj and another, 2003 SCC (L & S) 828, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para-11 pleased to hold that; “a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wagers, he holds no post.” 14. Similarly in the matter of Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Jagjiwan Ram and others, (2009) 3 SCC 661 , the Hon’ble Apex Court while examining the status of a work-charge employee viz-a-viz a regular employee pleased to observe as under : “9. We have considered the respective submissions. Generally speaking, a work-charged establishment is an establishment of which the expenses are chargeable to works. The pay and allowances of the employees who are engaged on a work-charged establishment are usually shown under a specified sub-head of the estimated cost of works. The work-charged employees are engaged for execution of a specified work or project and their engagement comes to an end on completion of the work or project. The course and mode of engagement/ recruitment of work-charged employees, their pay and conditions of employment are altogether different from the persons appointed in the regular establishment against sanctioned posts after following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Act or rules and their duties and responsibilities are also substantially different than those of regular employees. 10. The work-charged employees can claim protection under the Industrial Disputes Act or the rights flowing from any particular statute but they cannot be treated on a par with the employees of regular establishment. They can neither claim regularisation of service as of right nor can they claim pay scales and other financial benefits on a par with regular employees. If the service of a work-charged employee is regularised under any statute or a scheme framed by the employer, then he becomes member of regular establishment from the date of regularisation. His service in the work-charged establishment cannot be clubbed with service in a regular establishment unless a specific provision to that effect is made either in the relevant statute or the scheme of regularisation. In other words, if the statute or scheme under which service of work-charged employee is regularised does not provide for counting of past service, the work-charged employee cannot claim benefit of such service for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the regular cadre, promotion to the higher posts, fixation of pay in the higher scales, grant of increments, etc.” 15. The analysis of the aforesaid judgments makes absolutely crystal clear that a daily wages employee can only claim minimum wages as prescribed by the authorities and are not entitled for the minimum of the pay scale and, therefore, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot issue mandamus to the opposite parties for granting the minimum of current revised pay scale to the petitioners in view of their long services rendered in the department. 16. Accordingly the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. —————