JUDGMENT 1. This special appeal is directed against order of Single Bench dated 13th February, 1998, whereby learned Single Judge while disposing of writ petition of petitioner/respondent gave direction to respondents/appellants not to terminate the services of the petitioner if the scheme is continuing and to pay him the minimum of the regular pay-scale of Junior Engineer from the date of filing of the writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner/respondent filed a writ petition before Single Bench, wherein it was averred that petitioner was appointed by verbal order on daily wages as Junior Engineer in Municipal Board, Kaman on 1st March, 1991 at the rate of Rs. 40/- per day and he was paid his wages at this rate upto July 1991. Thereafter, petitioner was paid a fixed amount of Rs. 500/- per month. But from July 1, 1992 he was again paid Rs. 40/- per day. Petitioner requested the respondents to grant him regular pay-scale admissible to Junior Engineer, but they only gave assurances and not granted him the regular pay-scale. The petitioner, therefore, prayed in the writ petition that respondents be directed to pay him the regular pay-scale of the post of Junior Engineer. It was also prayed that respondents be directed to regularise the services of petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer. 3. The respondents filed their reply to writ petition, wherein averments made in the writ petition were denied and it was submitted that there was no vacant post of Junior Engineer in Municipal Board, Kaman. The petitioner was engaged in Nehru Rojgar Yojna introduced by Director of Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur. It was also stated that the scheme in which the petitioner was engaged i.e. Nehru Rojgar Yojna, there was no work in the Municipal Board, Kaman, therefore, he could not be continued and could not be paid the requisite wages, as claimed in the writ petition. It was also submitted that there was no administrative sanction and no post was vacant with the Municipal Board, Kaman and respondents are not liable to pay him regular pay-scale of the post of Junior Engineer under the Scheme of Nehru Rojgar Yojna. The regularisation of petitioner was also denied in absence of any sanctioned post. 4. It was also submitted that there was no administrative sanction and no post was vacant with the Municipal Board, Kaman and respondents are not liable to pay him regular pay-scale of the post of Junior Engineer under the Scheme of Nehru Rojgar Yojna. The regularisation of petitioner was also denied in absence of any sanctioned post. 4. Learned Single Judge after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examining the record disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner if the scheme is continuing and to pay him the minimum of the regular pay-scale of Junior Engineer. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid direction, the appellants have preferred this special appeal. 6. It is relevant to mention that Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 27th July, 1998 stayed the direction of Single Bench for making of payment at the minimum of regular pay scale of the post of Junior Engineer. The interim order was confirmed till the disposal of the appeal vide order dated 10th April, 2003. Therefore, till date the payment of minimum of regular pay-scale of the post of Junior Engineer has not been paid to the respondent. It is also relevant to mention that during the pendency of this special appeal, the writ petitioner/respondent was regularised on the post of Junior Engineer on 6th October, 2005 and since then he is getting the regular pay-scale of this post. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that respondent was appointed under a specific scheme and as per terms and conditions of the scheme, the writ petitioner was paid the wages either on fixed amount or daily wages payable/admissible in the scheme. He has submitted that the post on which the respondent was appointed was not a sanctioned post of Municipal Board, Kaman i.e. appellants. The Project Director gave a direction vide order dated 8th March, 1994 (Annex.7) annexed with the rejoinder to the reply that writ petitioner is entitled to a fixed amount of Rs. 500/- per month, which was increased to Rs. 90/- per day vide order dated 22nd November, 1993. He also submitted that the scheme was not of Municipal Board, Kaman, but was of State. 500/- per month, which was increased to Rs. 90/- per day vide order dated 22nd November, 1993. He also submitted that the scheme was not of Municipal Board, Kaman, but was of State. However, the State was not impleaded as a party respondent before Single Bench and no direction has been issued to State to pay the regular pay-scale of the post of Junior Engineer. The Municipal Board has no budget for this post. Therefore, appellants are not in a position to pay the amount. He has submitted that soon after the post became available, the petitioner's services have been regularised and he is now getting the regular pay-scale of the post. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order and submitted that similarly situated persons were paid the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the post of Junior Engineer. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to get the same benefit. During the course of arguments, he admitted that he has not pleaded in the writ petition as to who was the similarly situated person and was getting the minimum of regular pay-scale. In absence of specific pleadings, there was no specific reply to this submission. It is also relevant to mention that no such argument was advanced before Single Bench nor it was referred or dealt with. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. From the order of Single Bench, it appears that the counsel for the respondents (now appellants) specifically stated that writ petitioner was appointed in a scheme i.e. Nehru Rojgar Yojna and it was a temporary project. Therefore, he cannot be regularised. This fact was taken note of by learned Single Judge also. The Single Bench gave direction only to the effect that services of petitioner may not be terminated till the scheme is in existence or it is continuing. It specifically shows that it was a scheme of State and State was not impleaded as a party respondent. If State would have been made a party in the writ petition, a direction could have been issued to State and not to Municipal Board, who was not having any regular sanctioned post or budget. 10. It specifically shows that it was a scheme of State and State was not impleaded as a party respondent. If State would have been made a party in the writ petition, a direction could have been issued to State and not to Municipal Board, who was not having any regular sanctioned post or budget. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent admits that the facts mentioned in the reply to writ petition were not controverted by filing rejoinder or placing on record certain documents to the effect that post was regular/sanctioned post of Municipal Board, Kaman. 11. There is no dispute between the parties that writ petitioner has now been regularised on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the regular pay-scale by the respondents vide order dated 6.10.2005 and since then he is getting regular pay scale. 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Anr. v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association & Ors., 2010(2) Supreme 425 , considered the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and has held that it is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal. It is dependent on various factors such as educational qualifications, nature of the jobs, duties to be performed, responsibilities to be discharged, experience, method of recruitment etc. Para No. 15 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:- "15. The principles relating to granting higher scale of pay on the basis of equal pay for equal work are well settled. The evaluation of duties and responsibilities of different posts and determination of the Pay scales applicable to such posts and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities are complex executive functions, to be carried out by expert bodies. Granting parity in pay scale depends upon comparative job evaluation and equation of posts. The principle "equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal. It is dependent on various factors such as educational qualifications, nature of the jobs, duties to be performed, responsibilities to be discharged, experience, method of recruitment etc. Comparison merely based on designation of posts is misconceived. Courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only if they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to any particular section of employees. Comparison merely based on designation of posts is misconceived. Courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only if they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to any particular section of employees. The burden to prove disparity is on the employees claiming parity-vide State of U.P. v. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh, (1998) 1 SCC 422 ; Associate Bank Officers' Association v. State Bank of India, (1998) 1 SCC 428 ; State of Haryana & Anr. v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72 ; State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 123 ; S.S. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, 2007 (8) SCC 299 ; Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Aziz Ahmed, 2009 (2) SCC 606 ." 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Tilak Raj & Ors., 2003(4) Supreme 544 , considered the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and held that it is not always easy to apply. Para No. 6 of aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:- "The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organizations, or even in the same organization. In Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1988(3) SCC 91 ), this Court explained the principle of "equal pay for equal work" by holding that differentiation in pay scales among Government servants holding the same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, someless - it varies from nature and culture of employment. It was further observed that judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the posts and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bonafide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the Court." 14. From the above discussion and position of law, it is clear that respondent was appointed under a particular scheme of the State Government i.e. Nehru Rojgar Yojna. From the above discussion and position of law, it is clear that respondent was appointed under a particular scheme of the State Government i.e. Nehru Rojgar Yojna. There was no regular and sanctioned post of Junior Engineer available with the Municipal Board. The State Government was not impleaded as a party. No direction was issued to the State to pay the minimum of the regular pay scale of the post of Junior Engineer. The writ petitioner has already been regularised and is getting the regular pay scale of the post of Junior Engineer since 6th October, 2005. The direction of Single Bench to pay minimum of the regular pay scale was stayed after hearing both the parties during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, the said amount has not been paid so far. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the directions given by the Single Bench were not warranted and the same cannot be allowed to stand. 15. Consequently, we allow this special appeal and set aside the order of Single Bench, with no order as to cost.Appeal Allowed. *******