JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R. Iralu, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. L. Iralu, learned counsel and Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work. 3. The petitioners are all presently serving as Ex-cadre/contingency Dobashis (DBs) under the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner in the following districts namely, i) Dimapur, ii) Kiphire, iii) Tuensang, iv) Zunheboto, v) Longleng & vi) Peren. The petitioners were appointed in between the year 1997 to 2014. The petitioners are all paid a fixed amount of Rs. 6940/-(Rupees Six thousand nine hundred and forty only) per month after deducting the professional tax of Rs. 110/-. 4. That the recruitment of DBs in the State is regulated by the scheme brought out in the Office Memorandum No. CNE-1/GEN/2015/154, dated 14/09/2018. The said O.M is the guideline for recruitment of Grade-III & IV employees under the District Administration in the State. Clause-2 of the O.M dated 14/09/2018 provides that 67% of the vacant posts are reserved for in-service candidates while 33% of the vacant posts are reserved for fresh candidates. The said clause describes in-service as employees who have been appointed on contract/causal/ex-cadre without sanction post. Furthermore, as per the said O.M direct recruitment to Grade-III & IV post is to be conducted by the District Level Recruitment Board (DLRB) while the regularization of in-service employees is conducted by the District Level Verification Committee (DLVC). The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners submits that when the Ex-cadre DBs are regularized in service they are referred to as Grade-II DB and consequent thereto the DB getting fixed pay upon regularization are granted scale pay. It is also submitted that there are Ex-cadre/contingency DB who are granted scale pay which is carried forward on their regularization in service as Grade-II DB. The learned Sr. counsel however submits that the legal validity of Clause-3 of the O.M dated 14/09/2018 is under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 196(K)/2019 which is pending disposal. The learned Sr. It is also submitted that there are Ex-cadre/contingency DB who are granted scale pay which is carried forward on their regularization in service as Grade-II DB. The learned Sr. counsel however submits that the legal validity of Clause-3 of the O.M dated 14/09/2018 is under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 196(K)/2019 which is pending disposal. The learned Sr. counsel further submits that there is a Rule called the Nagaland Dobashis Service Rule, 1970 which regulates the recruitment of DBs, however since the rule has not been followed by the State, the same has become redundant and for the past 3 to 4 decades, the practice has been to first appoint persons as Ex-cadre DBs and thereafter, to regularize their service depending on seniority and existence of vacancies in accordance with the O.M dated 14/09/2018. 5. Mr. R. Iralu, learned Sr. counsel submits that the appointment of the petitioners as well as the other ex-cadre/contingency DBs has been loosely referred to as ex-cadre/contingency/adhoc/casual by the different District Administration and those DBs getting scale pay has been referred to as casual/adhoc. The learned Sr. counsel however submits that the nature of appointment of all the ex-cadre/contingency DBs whether appointed on fixed pay or scale pay is the same and they performed the same nature of work. There is however disparity in pay between the petitioners and the DBs similarly situated and the regular Grade-II DBs. 6. The learned Sr. counsel further submits that at present there are all together about 25(twenty five) ex-cadre/contingency DBs in the districts of Dimapur, Kiphire, Tuensang, Zunheboto, Longleng & Peren who are enjoying the scale pay despite the nature of appointment and the assigned works being the same as that of the petitioners. The scale pay of those ex-cadre/contingency DBs, it is submitted, is the same as that of the regular Grade-II DBs which at present is Rs. 3200-85-4900/- P.M as per the ROP of 1999, which according to the petitioners translates to around Rs. 17000/-(Rupees Seventeen thousand) per month. The learned Sr. counsel also submits that there are other ex-cadre DBs who have been appointed on scale pay of Rs. 5200-20,200/-P.M. It is also submitted that at present there are about 18(eighteen) regular Grade-II DBs under Dimapur District Administration and about 22(twenty two) regular Grade-II DBs under the Peren District Administration. 7. Mr. 17000/-(Rupees Seventeen thousand) per month. The learned Sr. counsel also submits that there are other ex-cadre DBs who have been appointed on scale pay of Rs. 5200-20,200/-P.M. It is also submitted that at present there are about 18(eighteen) regular Grade-II DBs under Dimapur District Administration and about 22(twenty two) regular Grade-II DBs under the Peren District Administration. 7. Mr. R. Iralu in order to substantiate that the petitioners perform the same nature of work, duties and responsibilities as that of the ex-cadre/contingency DBs receiving scale pay and the regular Grade-II DBs has taken this Court to the averments made in paragraph-10 of the writ petition which is reproduced as under; “10. That in this regard the petitioners states that the functions and duties of DBs, whether temporary or regular, are multifarious and they are not just assigned to one task. Their functions and duties can be broadly categorized in the manner as under; Assisting the district administration in maintaining law and order. The term “law and order” being generic, the DB assist the district administration wherever and whenever they are called upon in situations which involve law and order such as border disputes, land disputes, strikes bandhs, mob violence etc. Participating in DB Courts for adjudication of civil disputes in accordance with the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937. Assisting the District Administration in physically carrying out land surveys. Any other miscellaneous functions involving clerical nature of work, serving summons physically, accompanying the administrative officers in their day-to-today duties and other administrative duties as and when assigned by the administrative officers. They have also assisted the district administration actively during the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020-21 as frontline workers vide order dated 09.04.2020 which is annexed as Annexure D-2. 10.1 That in carrying out their duties and functions, the DBs are not distinguished, segregated, and/or identified by their nature of appointment/employment and they are not allotted work on such basis. The petitioners also state that the regular Grade-II DBs, or for that matter the ex-cadre/contingency DBs on pay scale, do not perform any special task apart from the above functions. As such, the petitioners state that they perform similar and identical nature of work as the regular Grade-II DBs and the ex-cadre/contingency DBs getting pay scale, but there is hostile discrimination prevalent in their pay.” 8. The learned Sr. As such, the petitioners state that they perform similar and identical nature of work as the regular Grade-II DBs and the ex-cadre/contingency DBs getting pay scale, but there is hostile discrimination prevalent in their pay.” 8. The learned Sr. counsel also submits that the petitioners have been agitating for scale pay through the Nagaland Ex-cadre Dobashi Union over the past several years but no positive response has been forthcoming from the respondent authorities. The petitioners, through the Union, has submitted representation dated 17/06/2020 to the respondent No. 2 seeking scale pay to all the ex-cadre DBs in the State but as the same did not evoke any response, the said Union has again on 10/09/2020 submitted the letter seeking prompt disposal of the representation dated 17/06/2020, however the same has also not yielded in any positive action from the respondent No.2. 9. The submission of the learned Sr. counsel in sum and substance is that the petitioners are being discriminated in a twofold manner, firstly the petitioners are being discriminated with the other 25(twenty five) ex-cadre/contingency DBs who are granted scale pay even though the petitioners are also appointed on temporary basis and perform and share similar duties and secondly, the petitioners are being discriminated against the regular Grade-II DBs performing the same nature of work and duties by denying them the fruits of their labour. The learned Sr. counsel, in support of his submissions, has relied in the case of Dhirendra Chamoli & Another -versus-State of U.P., reported in (1986) 1 SCC 637 to buttress the point that it makes no difference whether the petitioners are appointed in a sanction post or not, for so long as they are performing the same duties, they must received the same salary and conditions of service as the regular Grade-II DBs. 10. The State respondents in their affidavit has nowhere rebutted the claim of the petitioners that they are performing similar and identical nature of work as that performed by the regular Grade-II DBs and the ex-cadre/contingency DBs receiving the scale pay. The State has not even made a whisper against the averments made by the petitioners in paragraph-10 of the writ petition where the petitioners has vividly and elaborately described the nature of duties and functions performed alike by the DBs whether temporary or regular. The State has not even made a whisper against the averments made by the petitioners in paragraph-10 of the writ petition where the petitioners has vividly and elaborately described the nature of duties and functions performed alike by the DBs whether temporary or regular. A perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State infers a clear admission on the part of the State that the petitioners discharges the same nature of work, duties and responsibilities as that of the regular Grade-II DBs and the ex-cadre/contingency DBs getting scale pay. Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate has taken this Court to paragraph-5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents and submits that the 25(twenty five) ex-cadre/contingency DBs getting scale of pay were appointed before the guidelines were introduced by the O.M dated 14/09/2018. This Court does not find any justification in the said submission as the petitioners were also all appointed in between the year 1997 and 2014 much prior to the enforcement of the O.M dated 14/09/2018. Mr. Thiba Phom further submits that the petitioners have been appointed without sanction post and therefore, their claim for scale pay will be considered only when the service of the petitioner(s) are regularized by the District Level Recruitment Board (DLRB) in accordance with the guidelines incorporated in the O.M dated 14/09/2018. 11. The argument advanced on behalf of the State is that the petitioners are only ex-cadre/contingency DBs who were appointed without any sanction post and therefore their claim for scale pay cannot be considered until they are regularized in service in terms of the O.M dated 14/09/2018. But a bare perusal of the affidavit filed by the State and the submissions made by the learned State counsel itself demonstrates that the State has conceded that the petitioners perform the same nature of work and duties as that performed by the regular Grade-II DBs appointed against sanctioned post and the ex-cadre/contingency DBs paid the scale pay. Moreover the issue to be decided in the present case is not with regard to the regularization of the petitioners in service, the issue being as to whether the petitioners are entitled to equal pay for discharging equal work. Moreover the issue to be decided in the present case is not with regard to the regularization of the petitioners in service, the issue being as to whether the petitioners are entitled to equal pay for discharging equal work. It is no longer res integra that the concept of equality is not applicable to issues of absorption/regularization in service since a regular appointment can be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirement of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution, but the concept of equality is applicable to issue of pay parity if the work component is same. The law is also well settled that classification of workers doing the same work into different categories for payment of wages at different rates is not tenable and such an act of the employer would amount to exploitation and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the case of Dhirendra Chamoli & Another -versus-State of U.P (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined a claim for pay parity raise by temporary employees for wages equal to those being disbursed to regular employees. The prayer was accepted by holding that the action of not paying the same wage despite the work being the same was considered as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and it was further held that such action amounted to exploitation in a welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society. The relevant portion of paragraph-2 of the said judgment is extracted as under; “2. …………………..The argument envisaged in the counter affidavit is that since there are no sanctioned posts to which regular appointments can be made, the casual employees employed by different Nehru Yuvak Kendras cannot claim to receive the same salary and perquisites as Class IV employees appointed regularly to sanctioned posts. But while raising this argument, it is conceded in the counter affidavit that "the persons engaged by the Nehru Yuvak Kendras perform the same duties as is performed by Class IV employees appointed on regular basis against sanctioned posts”. If that be so, it is difficult to understand how the Central Government can deny to these employees the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees regularly appointed against sanctioned posts. If that be so, it is difficult to understand how the Central Government can deny to these employees the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees regularly appointed against sanctioned posts. It is peculiar on the part of the Central Government to urge that these persons took up employment with the Nehru Yuvak Kendras knowing fully well that they will be paid only daily wages and therefore they cannot claim more. This argument lies ill in the mouth of the Central Government for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a Welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This Article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, must therefore get the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees.” 13. In the recent case decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab & Others -versus-Jagjit Singh & Others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 , the Supreme Court held as under; “44.6. In State of Karnataka case, a Constitution Bench of this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, and directed that daily wagers be paid salary equal to the lowest grade of salary and allowances being paid to regular employees. In State of Karnataka case, a Constitution Bench of this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, and directed that daily wagers be paid salary equal to the lowest grade of salary and allowances being paid to regular employees. Importantly, in this case, this Court made a very important distinction between pay parity and regularization. It was held that the concept of equality would not be applicable to issues of absorption/regularization. But, the concept was held as applicable, and was indeed applied, to the issue of pay parity – if the work component was the same. The judgment rendered by the High Court, was modified by this Court, and the concerned daily wage employees were directed to be paid wages, equal to the salary at the lowest grade of the cadre concerned. 49.1. We are of the considered view, that in para 44 extracted above, the Constitution Bench clearly distinguished the issues of pay parity and regularization in service. It was held, that on the issue of pay parity, the concept of ‘equality’ would be applicable (as had indeed been applied by the Court, in various decisions), but the principle of ‘equality’ could not be invoked for absorbing temporary employees in Government service, or for making temporary employees regular/permanent. All the observations made in the above extracted paragraphs, relate to the subject of regularization/permanence, and not, to the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. As we have already noticed above, the Constitution Bench unambiguously held, that on the issue of pay parity, the High Court ought to have directed, that the daily wage workers be paid wages equal to the salary, at the lowest grade of their cadre. This deficiency was made good by making such a direction. 57. There is no room for any doubt that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle have been summarized by us in para 42 hereinabove. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The same is binding on all the courts in India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle have been summarized by us in para 42 hereinabove. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in para 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. 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. Any one, 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 dependents 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. 59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below: “7. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. 59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below: “7. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular: (a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with: (i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work; (ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant; (b) Safe and healthy working conditions; (c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence; (d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.” India is a signatory to the above Covenant, having ratified the same on 10-4-1979. There is no escape from the above obligation, in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee– whether engaged on regular or temporary basis. 60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the employees concerned (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by regular employees holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” summarized by us in para 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” summarized by us in para 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts were also posted to discharge the same work which was assigned to temporary employees from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity on any of the principles summarized by us in para 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees holding the same post. 61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding that all the temporary employees concerned, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post.” 14. In view of the discussions made above and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioners who discharges the same nature of work and duties as that of the regular Grade-II DBs in sanctioned post and the ex-cadre/contingency DBs who are paid scale pay are entitled to the pay parity on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 15. This Court accordingly directs the State respondents to pay to the petitioners the minimum scale of pay which is paid to the regular Grade-II DBs employed against sanction post along with the arrears from the date of filing of the present writ petition. All exercise for carrying out the directions of this Court shall be completed within a period of 90(ninety) days from the date of passing of the order. 16. Writ petition allowed. No cost.