ORDER : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999, Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999 and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The common question of law and fact involved in these writ petitions is that as to whether the incumbent appointed as daily wager can be terminated if the requests for regularization w.e.f. the date when juniors have been regularized ignoring the candidature of the petitioners have been made, on the pretext of non-availablity of the post, however, retaining the juniors. Therefore, these writ petitions are being decided by a common order. 3. At the outset, Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Writ Petition No.2146 (S/S) of 2016 has been rendered infructuous, therefore, it may be dismissed being infructuous. 4. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Writ Petition No.2146 (S/S) of 2016 is dismissed being infructuous. 5. Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 has been filed with the following prayers:- (I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of termination of petitioner's services dated 3.2.99 passed by opposite party no.2 contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition with consequential benefit. (II) issue further writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned order of termination dated 3.2.99 passed by opposite party no.2 contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition and permit the petitioner to continue in service with all consequential benefits. Petitioner's services may be regularised from 7.8.96, retrospectively. (III) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice may kindly also be passed. (IV) Cost of writ petition may be awarded." 6. Petitioner's services may be regularised from 7.8.96, retrospectively. (III) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice may kindly also be passed. (IV) Cost of writ petition may be awarded." 6. Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999 has been filed with the following prayers:- "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the oral order of termination dated 4.2.1999, as also the quashing of the order, if any, in writing for the termination of the petitioner's services, after summoning the same from the opposite parties. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue in service with all consequential benefits. (c) to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction deemed just and proper in favour of the petitioner, in the circumstances of the case. (d) to allow the writ petition with cost." 7. In Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999, the order under challenge is office order dated 3.2.1999 passed by the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Sugar Mills Federation Limited, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Sugar Mills Federation"), opposite party no.2 whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated for the reason that the post of driver on which the petitioner was appointed is not available with the Department. 8. In Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999, oral order of termination dated 4.2.1999 has been challenged. 9. The facts and circumstances of the case are that from the year 19901994 several persons were appointed as Car Driver on daily wages in the Sugar Federation. All such daily wage appointee were appointed on fixed pay @ Rs.1,100/-per month w.e.f. 1.7.1993 and w.e.f. 24.1.1995, salaries of the daily wagers were enhanced to Rs.2,000/-per month. The gradation list has been enclosed as Annexure No.3 to Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999, which shows that petitioner of Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 i.e. Lallan Singh is at serial no.3 and petitioner of Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999 i.e. Vibhuti Prasad is at serial no.4. 10. Perusal of the aforesaid gradation list also reveals that one Dukhi Ram is at serial no.1 in the aforesaid gradation list and Rakesh Kumar Sharma is at serial no.5. 10. Perusal of the aforesaid gradation list also reveals that one Dukhi Ram is at serial no.1 in the aforesaid gradation list and Rakesh Kumar Sharma is at serial no.5. Further, Sri Dukhi Ram was initially appointed on 10.10.1991 and Rakesh Kumar Sharma was initially appointed on 29.5.1992 whereas Lallan Singh, petitioner of Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 was initially appointed on 13.9.1990 and Vibhuti Prasad, petitioner of Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999 was appointed on 6.1.1991. Sri Dukhi Ram and Sri Rakesh Kumar Sharma despite being juniors to Sri Lallan Singh, petitioner of Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999, their services were regularised and they were appointed against substantive vacancy vide order dated 7.8.1996 ignoring the seniority of both the petitioners. Since services of the juniors have been regularised ignoring the claim of the petitioners hereto, the petitioners preferred representations to the authorities concerned placing their bona fide grievance making request that their services be also regularised. 11. On account of continuous persuasion by the petitioners for their grievance, as aforesaid, the Managing Director of the Sugar Mills Federation passed the office order dated 3.2.1999 terminating the services of Lallan Singh, petitioner of Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 and also terminated the services of Vibhuti Prasad, petitioner of Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999, orally on 4.2.1999 without providing him any formal order of termination. Feeling aggrieved out of the aforesaid inaction on the part of the Managing Director, Lallan Singh filed Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 and Vibhuti Prasad filed Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999. This Court granted interim order on 10.3.1999 in favour of Sri Lallan Singh and on 16.3.1999 in favour of Sri Vibhuti Prasad, resultant thereof both the petitioners were not only reinstated in service but were being paid regular salary also. 12. Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 has vehemently submitted that the impugned termination order is violative of provisions of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, besides violative of principles of natural justice for the reasons that the petitioner has been appointed earlier to Sri Dukhi Ram and Sri Rakesh Kumar Sharma and the petitioner being candidate of OBC category could not be considered prior to Sri Dukhi Ram for regularisation, who was also the candidate of OBC category. Sri Ravi Singh has also submitted that in view of the settled proposition of law of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the person, who has served sufficiently long period, would be entitled not only for continuation in service but also for regularisation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since this Court was pleased to grant interim orders in both the writ petitions and in compliance of the aforesaid interim orders, the respondents started making payment of salary to the petitioners, which are admissible for regular employees, therefore, the candidature of both the petitioners should have been considered for regularisation prior to their juniors. However, both the writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 and Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999 were dismissed for non prosecution on 31.5.2013, but the petitioners and the opposite parties were not aware about the orders dated 31.5.2013, therefore, no adverse order could be passed till 14.1.2016. By means of order dated 14.1.2016 the services of the petitioners were again dispensed with. The petitioners at once filed restoration applications and both the writ petitions have been restored by this Court vide orders dated 26.9.2016. After restoration of the writ petitions, the respondents started making consolidated salary to the petitioners on account of which the petitioners were suffering a lot as identically placed employee, namely, Ram Kishore Yadav was getting gross salary of Rs.56,275/-and net salary of Rs.37,943/-as indicated vide salary slip of Sri Ram Kishore Yadav for the month of September, 2017 whereas the petitioners were only paid consolidated salary of Rs.15,950/-only. 13. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has categorically submitted that the petitioners were considered for regularisation by the Committee on 30.8.1996, but could not be regularised on account of want of posts. Sri Tiwari has drawn attention of this Court towards true copy of the note sheet dated 22.6.1996 to 6.8.1996, which is contained in Annexure No.SCA-1 collectively with the supplementary counter affidavit dated 9.11.2017 whereby, as per Sri Tiwari, the Managing Director after considering the recommendation of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Joint Managing Director approved the recommendations on 6.8.1996, in furtherance of which regularisation orders were issued on 7.8.1996. 14. 14. I have perused the aforesaid documents carefully and have found that the list of the employees, who are said to have been considered for regularisation, has been prepared vide para-6 of the recommendation dated 6.8.1996 and it reveals that there was no candidate of Scheduled Caste, there were four candidates in Other Backward Class, namely, Sri Dukhi Ram, Sri Vibhuti Prasad (petitioner in Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999, Sri Lallan Singh (petitioner in Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999) and Sri Ram Kishore Yadav, whereas the names of Sri Rajendra Singh and Sri Rakesh Kumar Sharma are being shown in the General Category. Vide para-7 of the aforesaid recommendation, it has been categorically indicated that Sri Rajendra Kumar Sharma has been regularised in General Category whereas Sri Dukhi Ram has been regularised in Other Backward Class quota. It has also been indicated in para-6 of the aforesaid recommendation that Sri Dukhi Ram was getting consolidated pay w.e.f. 10.10.1991 whereas Sri Vibhuti Prasad and Sri Lallan Singh (petitioners hereto) were getting consolidated pay w.e.f. 1.7.1993 respectively. The aforesaid recital in the recommendation dated 6.8.1996 is factually incorrect inasmuch as the gradation list, which is enclosed in both the writ petitions (Annexure No.3 in Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 and Annexure No.10 in Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999), which goes to say that Sri Dukhi Ram started getting consolidated pay w.e.f. 10.10.1991, but Sri Lallan Singh and Sri Vibhuti Prasad (petitioners hereto) started getting consolidated pay w.e.f. 1.7.1993 respectively, however, they have been initially appointed as daily wagers on 13.9.1990 and 6.1.1991 respectively. Therefore, it is abundantly clear after the aforesaid perusal that the Committee has not properly considered the candidature of both the petitioners for their regularisation inasmuch as the date of getting consolidated salary has been considedred ignoring the date of initial appointment, may be it has purposely been indicated wrongly so that the petitioners hereto could not get the benefit of regularisation. Both the petitioners were senior to Sri Dukhi Ram and Sri Rakesh Kumar Sharma so far as initial date of appointment is concerned. Both the petitioners were senior to Sri Dukhi Ram and Sri Rakesh Kumar Sharma so far as initial date of appointment is concerned. Perusal of the aforesaid recommendation dated 6.8.1996 further reveals that Sri Ram Kishore Yadav, who started getting consolidated pay from March, 1994 was not regularised but he has been getting regular pay, which is admissible for the regular employees, as has already been stated herein above, therefore, this Court is unable to comprehend as to why the petitioners hereto have been subjected to the hostile discrimination inasmuch as no cogent reasons are traceable in the records. 15. Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for Vibhuti Prasad, petitioner of Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999 has categorically submitted that the petitioner Vibhuti Prasad was a candidate in Other Backward Class category and was senior to Sri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, who was a candidate of General Category, but his regularisation was firstly made treating him as Other Backward Class candidate but later on the mistake was corrected and Sri Sharma was declared as a candidate of General Category and the candidature of Sri Rakesh Kumar Sharma was considered prior to the petitioner for no cogent reasons to that effect. However, it appears that firstly the quota of Other Backward Class was given to Sri Sharma in a sheer unwarranted manner but later on that mistake was corrected, as aforesaid. He has also vehemently submitted that one Ram Kishore Yadav, who is junior to the petitioner and was appointed in the same manner as the petitioner was appointed and he has still not been regularised but is getting the regular pay scale as shown in the salary slip of Sri Ram Kishore Yadav for the month of September, 2017, which is enclosed as Annexure No.5 with the interim relief application filed by the petitioner on 13.11.2017. 16. Sri Shahi has also vehemently submitted that this Court while restoring the writ petitions vide order dated 26.9.2016 has not permitted the Department to make payment of consolidated salary to the petitioners, but the authorities are making payment of consolidated salary to the petitioners on the pretext that this Court vide order dated 26.9.2016 has permitted the authorities to make payment of consolidated salary to the petitioners. On 26.9.2016, similar orders have been passed in both the writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 and Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999. On 26.9.2016, similar orders have been passed in both the writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 and Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999. The order dated 26.9.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 is being reproduced herein below:- "This is an application for recall of order dated 31.05.2013 and for restoration of the petition to its original number. Heard Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.P. Singh, Advocate. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate has no objection in case the recall application is allowed and the writ petition is restored at its original number. The recall application is allowed. Order dated 31.05.2013 is hereby recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number. At the time of filing of the writ petition, on 10.03.1999, the following interim order was passed by this Court:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner shall also be allowed to continue as Driver as others are being allowed to continue. He shall be paid salary like the other Drivers. This order will be subject to the final decision of the writ petition." In so far as restoration of the interim order is concerned, Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate states that the petitioner was wrongly paid higher salary. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled to consolidated salary of Rs. 15,950/-only. In the circumstances, the interim order is restored. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue as driver but he shall be paid salary to which he is entitled under law. As prayed by the counsel for both the parties, list in the second week of November, 2016 for hearing." 17. Sri Shahi has also demonstrated the policy of making payment of salary to the employees, which has been enclosed as Annexure No.2 to the interim relief application dated 13.11.2017, which provides that the Sugar Mills Federation shall pay the dearness allowance to the employees who are on the consolidated salary. 18. Sri Shahi has also demonstrated the policy of making payment of salary to the employees, which has been enclosed as Annexure No.2 to the interim relief application dated 13.11.2017, which provides that the Sugar Mills Federation shall pay the dearness allowance to the employees who are on the consolidated salary. 18. On being asked from the learned counsel for the respondents as to why the petitioners of both the writ petitions, who were admittedly senior to Sri Dukhi Ram and Sri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, were not regularised prior to regularisation of junior employees, as aforesaid and also as to why one junior, namely, Ram Kishore Yadav, who is identically placed employee with the petitioners is getting regular pay scale whereas the petitioners are getting consolidated salary, no appropriate reply could be given. 19. Therefore, from the perusal of the records of the writ petition, it is undisputed that the petitioners were appointed prior to Sri Dukhi Ram and Sri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, but those persons have been regularised much prior to the petitioners. As per the opposite parties themselves, candidature of the petitioners was considered for regularisation by the Committee on 30.8.1996, but since the post was not available, therefore, they could not be regularised. The aforesaid fact makes it crystal clear that the appointments of the petitioners cannot be said to be back-door entry inasmuch as had the appointments of the petitioner been back-door entry, their regularisation would have not been considered by the authorities concerned. In the light of the aforesaid fact, the recital of the termination order dated 3.2.1999 in case of Lallan Singh, which reads that appointment of the petitioner (Lallan Singh) was back-door entry is misconceived. Further, petitioner-Lallan Singh has been discharging his duties w.e.f. 13.9.1990 on the post of Driver and petitioner-Vibhuti Prasad has been discharging his duties w.e.f. 6.1.1991 on the post of Driver and after the interim order being passed in their favour, they were being paid regular pay scale but after dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution and restoration of the writ petition, the authorities concerned started making payment of consolidated salary to the petitioners for no rhyme or reason inasmuch as one identically placed person Sri Ram Kishore Yadav, whose services have yet not been regularised, is getting the regular pay scale. It is also noted that while restoring the writ petition this Court has not permitted to make payment of consolidated salary to the petitioners but this Court has only observed that the petitioners be paid appropriate salary as per law. Therefore, the aforesaid conduct of the opposite parties is an example of hostile discrimination, which cannot be appreciated. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners have drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2440 referring paragraphs-10 &11, which are being reproduced hereunder:- "10. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) held as follows: “58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.” 11. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post." 21. On the strength of the aforesaid settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently submitted that the petitioners are legally entitled at least for the minimum of the regular pay scale on account of being employee performing the same duties, which are being discharged by those engaged on regular basis. 22. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the issue, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 3.2.1999 issued against the petitioner-Lallan Singh in Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 and oral termination order dated 4.2.1999 issued against the petitioner-Vibhuti Prasad in Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999 are misconceived, unwarranted, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, those orders are liable to be quashed. 23. Accordingly, the order dated 3.2.1999 assailed in Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 and oral termination order dated 4.2.1999 assailed in Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999 are hereby quashed. 24. The Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Sugar Mills Federation Limited, Lucknow is directed to permit the petitioners to discharge the duty of Driver in the Sugar Mills Federation continuously and the petitioners be paid regular salary at par with the regular Driver of the Sugar Mills Federation, which the petitioners were getting till December, 2015. 25. It is also provided that the petitioners shall be entitled for all consequential service benefits e.g. regularisation w.e.f. the date when juniors to the petitioners were regularised, arrears of salary w.e.f. January, 2016 till the date of regular salary is paid to the petitioners. Compliance of the aforesaid order shall be made within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court. 26. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.459 (S/S) of 1999 and Writ Petition No.583 (S/S) of 1999 are allowed. No order as to costs.