JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Ms. S.P. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y Doloi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 2. Ms. SP Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner No.1 has already got the relief, cause of action survives only in respect of the petitioner No.2. Therefore, only the case of petitioner No.2 shall be examined and he shall be referred to as the petitioner for convenience hereafter. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as orderly peon and attached to the Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Goalpara w.e.f 1.7.2008 in the pay scale of Rs.2450-3670 per month vide order dated 22.8.2008 (Annexure-2). The approval of the Finance was also accorded for such appointment as can be seen from his communication made by the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance (Budget) Department to the Treasury Officer of Goalpara on 3.4.2009 (Annexure-3). 4. Since the office of the Member, Foreigners Tribunal at Goalpara was functioning with the deputed staff from the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner of the Goalpara, the Member of the said Tribunal wrote to the Deputy Secretary, Goalpara, Political (B) Department on 17.6.2014 (Annexure-5 A) to accord permission to recruit the peon and chowkidar by mentioning that it was a sanctioned post against the establishment. Consequently, the Member, Foreigners Tribunal at Goalpra vide order dated 27.2.2015 posted the petitioner working as orderly peon to the post of office peon in the office of the Foreigners Tribunal in his existing pay scale vide order dated 27.2.2015 (Annexure-7). 5. Thereafter, pending enquiry for the alleged illegal appointment in the office of the Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Goalpara, Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara vide communication dated 1.6.2015 (Annexure-8) wrote to the Treasury Officer, Goalpara not to pass salary bills in respect of the petitioner posted as office peon. 6. Consequently, the petitioner not having received his salary pursuant to the communication dated 1.6.2015 has approached this Court through the instant writ petition. 7. Against the writ petition, the respondent Nos. 6. Consequently, the petitioner not having received his salary pursuant to the communication dated 1.6.2015 has approached this Court through the instant writ petition. 7. Against the writ petition, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their affidavit–in-opposition on 18.8.2015 whereby they have contended that the Member of Foreigners Tribunal at Goalpara illegally appointed the petitioner on 27.2.2015 on the eve of his retirement on 28.2.2015 which was a Sunday and that too without any consultation with the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara who is otherwise the Chairman of the Selection Board. Therefore, the Treasury Officer, Goalpara on 1.6.2015 was informed not to pass salary bills of the petitioner pending finalization of the enquiry. The Deputy Commissioner also entrusted the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara to enquire into the illegal appointment in the establishment concerned vide letter dated 22.5.2015 and the enquiry concluded with the findings that the then Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Goalpara illegally appointed the petitioner without observing due procedure established by law and therefore the appointment of the petitioner on 27.2.2015 cannot be sustained. The enquiry report was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 16.7.2015 with the findings that Sri NC Dutta, the then Member, Foreigners Tribunal-1 Goalpara posted the petitioner who was an orderly peon as peon of the establishment on the last day of his retirement as 28.2.2015 was a Sunday and it was without due process. It was therefore suggested that the Government in political (B) Department be informed to cancel the posting immediately and fresh recruitment process by following due procedure as prescribed be undertaken. 8. The respondent No.5 also filed affidavit in opposition on 9.9.2015 contending inter-alia that the petitioner who was appointed as orderly peon and attached to the Member, Foreigners Tribunal vide order dated 22.8.2008 and the post is coterminous with the tenure of the Member as provided under the Clause–U(d) of the Assam Foreigners Tribunal Establishment (Ministerial) Services, 2012. Such appointment without constitution of Selection committee and much less without consulting the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and cannot be sustained. 9. Appearing for the writ petitioner Ms. SP Hussain submits that the petitioner was not appointed as office peon but he was posted as such and since his posting, he has been rendering his service as office peon to the post. 9. Appearing for the writ petitioner Ms. SP Hussain submits that the petitioner was not appointed as office peon but he was posted as such and since his posting, he has been rendering his service as office peon to the post. Although the enquiry board termed the petitioner’s appointment as illegal appointment, petitioner is in fact still working as office peon despite not receiving his salary ever since his appointment. She therefore submits that the petitioner is liable to be paid his salary in terms of the work he has discharged as office peon. She submits that as the petitioner has been rendering his service as office peon, the respondents be directed to release the salary of the petitioner as office peon. Despite the enquiry report submitted on 16.6.2015, the respondent authorities have nevertheless utilized the service as office peon and the petitioner has not been terminated from his service and is working till date. Ms. SP Hussain in support of her submissions relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. –vs- Jagjit Singh & Ors reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148 wherein the Apex Court in view of the discharging of similar dues by a temporary employee with that of a regular employee, the parity of pay has to be maintained. 10. Appearing for the State respondents, Mr. Y Doloi, learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand submits that the appointment of the petitioner having not been routed through due process and such appointment having been made by the Member of the Foreigners Tribunal on the last day of his retirement, cannot be sustained. The substantive appointment of the petitioner was as orderly peon at to which he was entitled to his salary as per the salary fixed for orderly peon and that too till the Member concerned of the Foreigners Tribunal was holding the office. Since the employment of the orderly peon is co-terminus with the service of the Member, Foreigners Tribunal, the petitioner was not allowed to continue in the illegal appointment as office person. In that view of the matter, he submits that the Court may permit the respondents to fill up the post of office peon on regular basis since the appointment of the petitioner is illegal. 11. In support of his submissions, the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. In that view of the matter, he submits that the Court may permit the respondents to fill up the post of office peon on regular basis since the appointment of the petitioner is illegal. 11. In support of his submissions, the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Y Doloi referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others –vs- Uma Devi & Ors reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 to contend that the concept of equal pay for equal work cannot be pressed into service when the appointment to the post in question is without any process of selection described in that regard. The petitioner under no circumstance can claim pay of a regular employee considering the illegal appointment. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. At the outset what is to be noticed is that despite the appointment and posting of the petitioner being termed illegal, the petitioner has not been terminated from his service and he admittedly continues to render his service as on date despite their being no such order from this Court. This would indicate that the establishment of the Member, Foreigners Tribunal in Goalpara is in need of the service of the office peon. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner’s appointment/ posted as office peon in the establishment was not preceded by any selection while the procedure for such appointment is duly prescribed. The Deputy Commissioner is the Chairman of the Selection Board for any appointment to be made in the district and in the instant case, no consultation with the Selection Board or the Deputy Commissioner was made by the then Member of the Foreigners Tribunal. Therefore, it would be proper that the post of office peon as sanctioned by the respondent authorities should be filled up by following due process of law as envisaged in this regard. In that view of the matter, respondents, more particularly, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to initiate the process of filling up the post of peon held by the writ petitioner as per procedure prescribed immediately and the entire exercise shall be completed not later than 3 months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to initiate the process of filling up the post of peon held by the writ petitioner as per procedure prescribed immediately and the entire exercise shall be completed not later than 3 months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to participate in the selection process. In such even, the respondent authorities concerned shall take into consideration his experience and relaxation of age if so required. 13. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s service has been continued although without salary despite the fact that the enquiry concluded with the findings that his appointment was illegal, the petitioner shall be allowed to work till the post is filled up as has been directed. 14. On the question of the salary entitled to the petitioner, although he may have been irregularly appointed or posted to the post in question but nevertheless, the petitioner undisputedly has been discharging the duty of an office peon in absence of any pleadings or submissions to the contrary. The Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) examined the various decisions rendered by the Apex Court with regard to the absorption on regularisation of employees who were otherwise not engaged after following due process. The Apex Court at the same time examined the case of Uma Devi (Supra) referred to by the learned Additional Advocate General. The Apex Court observed that the Constitution Bench consciously distinguished the issue of pay parity from the issue of absorption/ regularisation in service. It was held that on the issue of pay parity, the High Court ought to have directed that the daily wages workers be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest Grade of their cadre. The Constitution Bench expressed the view that concept of the equality would not be applicable to the issue of absorption /regularisation in service. Conversely on the subject of pay parity, it was unambiguously held that daily wage should be equal to the salaries at the lowest grade (without any allowances). The Constitution Bench expressed the view that concept of the equality would not be applicable to the issue of absorption /regularisation in service. Conversely on the subject of pay parity, it was unambiguously held that daily wage should be equal to the salaries at the lowest grade (without any allowances). Therefore taking the ratio of the decision laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra), I find that the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of a regular office peon in the minimum regular scale of pay attached to the post from the date of his appointment up to the date he is retained in the post. The same shall however be subject to proper verification by the respondent No. 5 of actual work performed as claimed by the petitioner. 15. With the observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.