JUDGMENT : TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. 1. The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is an order dated 14th October, 2009 passed by the respondent no. 2. 2. Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that to meet the financial needs of her family, the petitioner was compelled to discontinue her studies after reading up to Class-VIII in Raigunj Mohanbati Girls' High School and to join the office of the respondent no. 6 on 2nd January, 1985 on a temporary basis and she was allotted the duties of a sweeper. At that juncture she was a minor. After she attained majority, she was appointed as a casual/contingent staff by a letter dated 4th December, 1987 issued by the respondent no. 6. Since then the petitioner is uninterruptedly discharging her services in the office of the respondent no. 6 till date for more than thirty years. At the time of initial engagement, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 10/- per month. Thereafter, the remuneration was enhanced to Rs. 25/- per month and in the year 1996 such remuneration was enhanced to Rs. 450/- per month. 3. She further submits that in the year 1998 persons similarly situated with the petitioner were absorbed in Group-‘D’ posts. The petitioner objected against such discrimination practised by the authorities by submitting a representation but in vain and as such she approached this Court by a writ petition, being WP 11824 (W) of 2009 and by an order dated 31st July, 2009 the petitioner's claim was relegated for consideration. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order. 4. She contends that from the order impugned dated 14th October, 2009 it would be explicit that the petitioner's claim was rejected primarily on the ground that she is not the only contractual worker rendering services and that there are 27 contractual workers associated with different branches/union of BENFED being the West Bengal State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited including the petitioner and that if the petitioner's prayer is accepted then there will be 26 more to be provided with same opportunity which the financial condition and human resource strength of BENFED do not permit. In the impugned order it has not been disputed that the petitioner is rendering continuous service, however, it has been stated that such service as rendered by the petitioner is purely contingent in nature for a period of only 3 to 4 hours per day. In the impugned order it has also been observed that there is no scheme at present for absorption of contractual workers. 5. Drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in the writ petition, Ms. Mukherjee submits that the petitioner's duty hour is from 9 a.m to 5 p.m and she is working on daily rate basis and is discharging service as rendered by a regular Group-‘D’ employee and that as such she is entitled to payment of wages on a par with the regular Group-‘D’ employees. According to her, temporarily engaged employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like, whatever be the nomenclature) are entitled to pay parity with the regular Group-‘D’ employees as they are performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against sanctioned posts. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, reported in AIR 2016 SC 5176 , in the case of Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265 and in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat v. Sri. Ashwini Ray, reported in 2016 (8) Supreme 733 . 6. Per contra, Mr. Tarafdar, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the terms of the petitioner's engagement in the year 1985 did not confer any right upon her since she was a minor at that juncture. The petitioner's engagement was on contractual terms and restricted to 4 hours per day only on working dates and maximum for 20 days in a month and such service as rendered cannot be construed to be perennial in nature. The petitioner's duty was to sweep only two small rooms and a bath room in the office of the respondent no. 6 and to supply drinking water to the regular employees and for such work she was not required to be in office for more than 4 hours. She was engaged on part-time contingent menial work on the basis of no work and no pay. 6 and to supply drinking water to the regular employees and for such work she was not required to be in office for more than 4 hours. She was engaged on part-time contingent menial work on the basis of no work and no pay. Her engagement in service was not on the basis of the recruitment rules and such engagement did not confer any right upon her to claim regularisation or pay parity. The payment vouchers would also reveal that the petitioner was paid from the contingency head/fund of the respondent no. 1. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the documents at pages 31 to 42 of the affidavit-in-opposition. 7. He further submits that the petitioner is not the only contractual worker rendering such services to BENFED. There are 27 number of contractual workers associated with different branches/units of BENFED including the petitioner. If her prayer is accepted, there will be 26 more to be provided the same opportunity which the financial condition and human resource strength of BENFED do not permit. 8. He further submits that the petitioner was not appointed through a regular selection process and as such the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and not merely irregular. Mere continuance of service on ad hoc basis does not entitle the petitioner to seek regularization. In the event such direction is passed it would simply reinvigorate a class of claims which has been shut out permanently by the judgment delivered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), reported in (1996) 4 SCC 1 . Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Accounts Officer (A&I) APSRTC v. K.V Ramana, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 324 . 9. In reply, Ms. Mukherjee has categorically denied that the petitioner's duty was only to sweep two small rooms. The petitioner has to sweep three rooms, one verandah, staircase, two toilets used by the bank employees and two more toilets used by the customers and outsiders. Apart from the rooms the petitioner is also required to clean the tables and chairs and has to remain engaged for the entire day for supplying water to all the employees (presently nine employees) and to supply tea and snacks to the employees. Apart from the rooms the petitioner is also required to clean the tables and chairs and has to remain engaged for the entire day for supplying water to all the employees (presently nine employees) and to supply tea and snacks to the employees. To cope up with the expansion of activities, computers and fax machine have been installed and the petitioner has to clean the same on daily basis. As directed by the respondent no. 6, she also has to attend other banks and post office to serve documents and she is the last person to leave the office premises since she has to lock up all the doors after all employees leave at about 5 p.m In support of the fact that she has to render service on working days from 9 a.m in the morning till 5 p.m in the evening, the petitioner has annexed attendance sheets and vouchers and the same bears the signature of the respondent no. 6. Reliance has also been placed upon a document dated 28th April, 2010 in support of the fact that persons working in Group-‘D’ posts are presently enjoying a revised pay scale of Rs. 4,900/- to 16,200/- as revised with effect from 1st October, 2010. She has, however, not been able to produce any document as regards the pay scale presently enjoyed by the Group D staff. 10. Ms. Mukherjee further submits that in the affidavit-in-opposition it has been admitted by the respondents that by a memo dated 6th March, 1998 casual workers, who have been engaged by the management of the respondent no. 1 from time to time in perennial type of work and has completed more than three years of continuous service as casual worker in BENFED, from the date of their engagement and have completed at least 240 days of work in each year were absorbed in BENFED. The list of the casual workers absorbed has also been annexed to the memo dated 6th March, 1998. 11. Mr. Tarafdar has also filed a supplementary affidavit-in-opposition to bring on record a document dated 17th August, 2017 by which the respondents have enhanced the existing rate of remuneration of the contingent menials by 20% and the enhanced monthly allotment of fund of the Uttar Dinajpur branch, in which the petitioner is working, has been stipulated to be Rs. 5388/-. Mr. Tarafdar has also filed a supplementary affidavit-in-opposition to bring on record a document dated 17th August, 2017 by which the respondents have enhanced the existing rate of remuneration of the contingent menials by 20% and the enhanced monthly allotment of fund of the Uttar Dinajpur branch, in which the petitioner is working, has been stipulated to be Rs. 5388/-. He further submits that the documents annexed to the affidavit-in-reply by the petitioner were not there in the writ petition and as such the petitioner cannot place reliance upon the same. However, when asked to advance his arguments as regards the said documents, Mr. Tarafdar categorically denied the veracity of the said documents and submitted that the signatures of the District Managers appearing in the said documents do not tally with the signatures of the self-same District Managers in the vouchers annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition. 12. Mr. Tarafdar further submits that there is no proper averment in the writ petition pertaining to the issue that the petitioner is discharging services on every working day from 9 a.m to 5 p.m The issue of equal pay for equal work as agitated by the petitioner is required to be substantiated by facts. It is well settled that the party raising the point must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if the facts are not pleaded or evidence of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition the Court will not entertain the point. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (1988) 4 SCC 534 : AIR 1988 SC 2181 . 13. Indisputably the petitioner is rendering service in the office of the respondent no. 6 since the year 1985 and she is working till date, as would be explicit from the vouchers annexed to the supplementary affidavit. The memo dated 4th/5th December, 1987 annexed at page 16 of the writ petition gives the details of the petitioner's engagement specifying that her first date of entry in service was 1st February, 1985 and that the question in clause 8, “Whether they have completed 240 days as working days from the 1st date of joining in Benfed excepting break in service in each case?”, has been answered to be “yes”. In the document annexed at page 18 of the writ petition it has been categorically stated by the respondent no. 6 that “Dipali Dutta is serving this organisation as Contingent Menial in West Dinajpur Branch (now Uttar Dinajpur Branch) Zonal Office, Northern Zone, Raiganj for last 15 years. Now wages is paying @ Rs. 450.00 per month. As the market rate of all daily consuming commodities is too high to mitigate the expenses, she may be allowed to draw wages as per Government daily rate or Rs. 1,500.00 per month. Placed to Zonal Manager, Northern Zone, BENFED and Hon'ble Director, BENFED Uttar Dinajpur for his kind consideration”. 14. The question as to why the benefits extended to similarly situated casual employees were not extended to the petitioner has not been answered in the order passed by the Managing Director on 14th October, 2009, while dealing with the petitioner's representation claiming regularization and pay parity, which was forwarded to him for consideration by a memo dated 11th August, 2008 issued by the respondent no. 6. The requirement towards such absorption was that the workers engaged have to complete three years of continuous service from the dates of their respective engagements and have to complete at least 240 days of work in each year. The petitioner was engaged in the year 1985 and she fulfilled the said requirement but she was denied identical relief. Such facts substantiate a clear cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination to be eligible to claim rights on a par with the other group. In the impugned order it has only been stated that in the event the petitioner is placed in a regular scale of pay other 26 contractual workers associated with different branch/unit of BENFED would also have to be accommodated which is not possible in view of the present financial condition and resources of BENFED. Such reasoning appears to be of desperation. On a pretext that grant of relief to the petitioner would open an avenue for the remaining 26 contractual workers to claim identical relief, the valuable right earned by the petitioner towards pay parity cannot be permitted to be taken away. 15. The signatures of the respondent no. Such reasoning appears to be of desperation. On a pretext that grant of relief to the petitioner would open an avenue for the remaining 26 contractual workers to claim identical relief, the valuable right earned by the petitioner towards pay parity cannot be permitted to be taken away. 15. The signatures of the respondent no. 6 appearing in the documents annexed at pages 12 to 66 of the reply tally with the signature of the self-same District Manager appearing in the contemporaneous vouchers issued by the self-same District Manager at pages 67 to 75 of the reply and at pages 31 to 52 of the opposition. The continuing necessity towards engagement of the petitioner is explicit from the records. The work rendered by the petitioner and the work rendered by a Group-‘D’ employee does not differ qualitatively or quantitatively. The duties and responsibilities attached to a Group-‘D’ post are also being discharged by the petitioner and in such circumstances applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, the petitioner is also entitled to the minimum of the pay scale which is being given to regular Group-‘D’ employees in BENFED. From the records it is explicit that the respondents after admitting that the petitioner has been engaged in the year 1985 and is continuously discharging her services till date are trying to describe the nature of work rendered by the petitioner to be of only 4 hours per day. 16. No material has been placed before the Court to show that there is any difference in nature of duty being performed by the petitioner engaged and a regular Group ‘D’ staff. On examining the pleadings I find that the petitioner has been able to discharge the burden of establishing equivalence between the work rendered by her and her regular counterparts in terms of (i) qualification, (ii) mode of recruitment, (iii) discharge of duties; and (iv) degree of responsibility which entitles her to invoke the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. As such, the judgment delivered in the case of Bharat Singh (Supra), upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Tarafdar, is not applicable to the facts of this case. 17. As such, the judgment delivered in the case of Bharat Singh (Supra), upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Tarafdar, is not applicable to the facts of this case. 17. In the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, upon considering the judgment delivered in the case of Uma Devi (Supra), observed that the concept of equal pay for equal work is different from the concept of conferring permanency on those who have been appointed on ad hoc basis, temporary basis or based on no process of selection as envisaged by the prevalent rules. It was also observed that in the case of Uma Devi (Supra), the issue canvased was of regularization and not pay parity and that the concept of equality would be applicable to the issue of pay parity - if the work component is the same. On the rudiments of such observations, the Hon'ble Supreme Court arrived at a finding that temporary employees would also be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of pay scale extended to regular employees, holding the same post. 18. The judgment in the case of Accounts Officer (A&I) (Supra), upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Tarafdar, was delivered placing reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) and as such the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present lis pertaining to pay parity. 19. Judiciary has a very strong sense of justice and it works to maintain social justice and fairness. Equity regards as done, which should have been done. It would be the bounden duty of this Court to put an end to the protracted long agony of the petitioner, who had suffered the distraught pain and was kept in animated tenterhooks in anticipation of an employment or pay parity and faced stone walled response from an apathetic administration. 20. In the order impugned the respondent no. 2 has failed to establish that the service rendered by the petitioner is different from the service rendered by the persons absorbed in regular establishment in BENFED vide memo dated 6th March, 1998. It is also not the case of the respondents that that the petitioner did not possess the qualification prescribed for appointment on regular basis. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. It is also not the case of the respondents that that the petitioner did not possess the qualification prescribed for appointment on regular basis. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. The present writ petition is thus squarely covered by the judgment delivered in the case of Jagjit Singh (Supra) and the claim of the petitioner towards pay parity deserves to be allowed. 21. Accordingly, on and from the month of January, 2018, the respondents are directed to pay the minimum of the regular pay scale along with dearness allowance as extended to the regular Group-‘D’ employees or the revised remuneration in terms of the memo dated 17th August, 2017, whichever is higher, to the petitioner every month till she attains the age of superannuation as stipulated for the regular Group D employees. 22. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 23. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.