JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri D.P. Tripathi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Neeraj Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent and Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 2. Petitioner, Dharmendra Singh, by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has sought writ of certiorari quashing order dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure 20 to writ petition) rejecting his request for regularization and has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to reinstate him in service on the parity of petitioners of Writ Petition No. 7942 of 1994 decided on 24.4.2000 and to regularize him within such time as determined by this Court. 3. Facts giving rise to present dispute are as under. 4. Petitioner was engaged as Skilled Labour on Daily Wage on 10.12.1991 in Chandra Shekhar Agriculture and Technology University (hereinafter referred to as “University”). It is said that though he was engaged in 1991 and continuously discharged his duties as daily wage employee in support whereof a certificate dated 29.4.2000 has been filed as Annexure 1 to writ petition but his wages have not been paid since August’ 2006. He filed writ petition No. 25755 of 2002 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 17.10.2006 with the following order: “Sri Prakash Padia, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent University submits that the legal position has undergone a sea change specifically in view of the judgment of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 . Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18198 of 2000 Krishna Prakash Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 4.4.2005 and Writ Petition No. 46546 of 2002 Dikar Deo and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 7.4.2005 and submits that the petitioners are also entitled for regularization of their services. Elaborating his arguments it was submitted that the petitioners are working without help of any interim order of this Court and in view of the observations made by Apex Court in para 53 in the case of Uma Devi and others (supra), their case for regularization is to be considered by the respondents in accordance with the relevant rules. Elaborating his arguments it was submitted that the petitioners are working without help of any interim order of this Court and in view of the observations made by Apex Court in para 53 in the case of Uma Devi and others (supra), their case for regularization is to be considered by the respondents in accordance with the relevant rules. In the opinion of the Court, the issue raised on behalf of the parties requires consideration by the Vice Chancellor of the University itself as the first instance. It is therefore provided that the petitioner may make a representation within two weeks from today, alongwith certified copy of this order, seeking parity with the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 7942 of 1994, decided on 24.4.2000. On such representation being made, the Vice-Chancellor shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law and shall pass a reasoned speaking order, preferably within 8 weeks from the date representation is so filed. With the aforesaid directions/ observations the present writ petition is disposed of finally.” 5. Petitioner’s claim was rejected by order dated 8.1.2007 (Annexure 16 to writ petition) whereagainst he again filed writ petition no 13138 of 2007 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 25.9.2008 copy of the said judgment is Annexure 17 to writ petition and it would show that it is verbatim reproduction of judgment dated 17.10.2006 in the earlier writ petition of present petitioner No. 25755 of 2002. It appears that petitioner’s counsel did not bring to the notice of this Court that with the same direction petitioner’s earlier writ petition has already been decided whereafter the order dated 8.1.2007 was passed. The impugned order in the present case has been passed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court second time i.e. in second writ petition of the this petitioner. The fact remains that the order dated 8.1.2007 passed by the competent authority pursuant to judgment dated 17.10.2006 has not been touched and the same has attained finality. Respondents have passed the order impugned in the writ petition which also reiterate the facts and decision of the respondents as mentioned in the order dated 8.1.2007. 6. The fact remains that the order dated 8.1.2007 passed by the competent authority pursuant to judgment dated 17.10.2006 has not been touched and the same has attained finality. Respondents have passed the order impugned in the writ petition which also reiterate the facts and decision of the respondents as mentioned in the order dated 8.1.2007. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has been denied benefit of judgment of this Court in several other cases in which direction for payment of minimum of regular pay scale and regularization were issued, hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Record shows that petitioner was working as a daily wage employee in Oil Seed Research Firm, Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar. It appears that an Association of daily wage employees of University, namely, Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Pradhogic Bhogi Karmchari Sangthan filed two writ petitions No. 7942 of 1994 and 16910 of 1994 before this Court. In the former a direction for regularization of services of members of Association and payment of salary similar to other Class III and Class IV employees was sought while in the later one order dated 6.5.1994 passed by Administrative Officer of the University cancelling earlier orders of University, dated 31.12.1993 and 21.2.1994, was challenged. The order dated 31.12.1993 was issued granting some daily wage employees the salary at the minimum of regular pay scale, i.e. Rs. 750/- to daily wage Class IV employees and Rs. 900/- per month to daily wage Class III employees. It was also said that such employees would be entitled for leave and shall be regularized on the vacancies occurring in Class III and Class IV cadre with due passage of time. Some amendment was made in this order on 22.1.1994 but later on both these orders, i.e. 31.12.1993 and 21.2.1994 were revoked by University vide order dated 6.5.1994. 8. The above two writ petitions were disposed of finally vide judgment dated 24.4.2000 with the following directions: “(I) The University will not appoint any fresh Class III and IV employees and daily wagers may be first absorbed on the post which have fallen vacant or which are likely to fall vacant. (II) The respondent may frame service condition for absorbing the Daily wager employees in Class III and IV posts. (II) The respondent may frame service condition for absorbing the Daily wager employees in Class III and IV posts. (III) The daily wager employees for whose benefit these writ petitions have been filed may be given minimum salary of pay prescribed for the post from the date of the judgment. In addition to this they will also be paid dearness allowances as well on the prescribed rate.” 9. The matter was taken in intra Court Appeal i.e. Special Appeal No. 565 of 2000 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.5.2001 and the Special Leave Petition No. 14326 of 2001 was also dismissed. Thereafter some other writ petitions were filed which were disposed of in terms of judgment dated 24.4.2000 and they are as under: (1) Writ petition No. 25502 of 2000 (Vinod Kuamr Nigam and 35 others v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 3.7.2011 (Special Appeal No. 646 (D) of 2001 was dismissed on 10.1.2003. (2) Writ Petition No. 18198 of 2000 (Krishna Prakash Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 4.4.2005 (3) Writ Petition No. 46546 of 2002 (Dikar Deo and others v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 7.4.2005. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in view of the above decisions, petitioner is also entitled for regularization and for salary equivalent to corresponding regular employees. 11. However, I find no force in the submission. 12. So far as judgment of this Court dated 24.4.2000 is concerned, it is evident that this Court did not adjudicate inter se rights of the parties and instead in the facts and circumstances of the case made certain directions to respondents which included; (1) respondents shall frame service conditions for absorption of Class IV posts, (2) the daily wage employees, for whose benefit writ petition was filed, shall be given minimum scale of pay prescribed for the post from the date of judgment besides dearness allowance as prescribed. 13. Pursuant to aforesaid directions, University has framed a scheme whereunder the daily wage employees have been placed in order of seniority based on length of working and are being considered for regularization as and when vacancies occur. 14. The impugned order dated 20.12.2008 also shows that University sent draft Rules for approval of the Government. 13. Pursuant to aforesaid directions, University has framed a scheme whereunder the daily wage employees have been placed in order of seniority based on length of working and are being considered for regularization as and when vacancies occur. 14. The impugned order dated 20.12.2008 also shows that University sent draft Rules for approval of the Government. It was replied by the Special Secretary, U.P. Government that Service Rules drafted for regularization of daily wage employees be implemented by University after having approval from Executive Council. Pursuant thereto, Service Rules were approved by Executive Council on 1.7.2002 and the University has proceeded accordingly. It has been informed to the petitioner that his name has been placed in seniority list of daily wage employees and as and when vacancy would be available to the petitioner in his turn, he would be considered for regularization. 15. So far as salary at par with the regular employees is concerned, it is not the case of petitioners that the judgment dated 24.4.2000 is ipso facto applicable to him but he is seeking extension of judgment to him. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a Larger Bench of Apex Court in fact has not approved the general contention of daily wage employees for providing equal salary with regular employees. The Three-Judge Bench of Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, 2006 (9) SCC 321 , while discarding the principle of “equal pay for equal work” in such matter said: “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. 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 may 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 produced 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 matters 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 regards.” (emphasis added) 16. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters 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 regards.” (emphasis added) 16. This has been followed by Apex Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others, JT 2008 (11) SC 467 and State of Punjab and another v. Surjit Singh and others, JT 2009 (10) SC 424 and a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a Member) in Special Appeal No. 1317 of 2003 (M.D./Chief Engineer U.P. Jal Nigam and others v. Sri Nath Singh and others) decided on 22.12.2006. 17. Moreover, a decision to this effect has already been taken by University in respect to petitioner on 8.1.2007 and the said order has attained finality. 18. Hence I do not find any error apparent on the face of record with the impugned order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 19. Dismissed. ——————