ORDER : (K. Manmadha Rao, J.) : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to call for the records vide letter Rc No.16394/P.O (Balyam) dated 19.06.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional and it amounts to violative of Articles 14, 16, 21, 39(d) of the Constitution of India, contrary to principles of natural justice and set aside the same, direct the respondents to regularizing the services of the petitioners in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar, 2015(8) SCC 265 the petitioners are falling within exception carved out in Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1 with all consequential benefits in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 5176 with interest in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders…….” 2. The precise case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Balwadi Aayas and working under Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and assigned to promote adult education and non formal education (drop out) and educate 3 to 5 years children. The respondent authorities are utilizing their services in elections, senses work etc., organized by the corporation apart from prescribed duties. The respondent authorities have not been paid any additional remuneration for allotting other than actual duties. The petitioners are eligible and qualified to hold the posts of Balayam Aayas, but the respondents did not take steps to regularize their services, inspite of several requests and also not paying the salary attached to the post is contrary to the Hon’ble Apex Court judgments. Hence, inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition and requested to allow the same. 3. Heard Mr. P. Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contents urged in the writ affidavit and requested to allow the writ petition. 3. Heard Mr. P. Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contents urged in the writ affidavit and requested to allow the writ petition. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed to allow the writ petition and in support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and Others”, (2010) 4 SCC 728 and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record. 6. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the petitioners are working for the corporation since long time with a hope to get their employment permanent. The respondents issued G.O.Ms.No. 542, dated 31.08.2009 sanctioning minimum time scale to 310 employees working in the different categories i.e NMR/ contract workers etc., but ignoring services of the petitioners, it amounts to violation of articles, 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the Government had issued G.O.Rt.No.333, dated 07.03.2011 enhancing the remuneration of the contract/ out sourcing employee working in Municipalities and Corporations to Rs. 6,700/- and the Municipal Standing Committee had approved and passed resolution No. 547 of 2011, dated 09.11.2011 that as per G.O.Rt.No.333, dated 07.03.2011 Balayam Teachers should be paid maximum of Rs. 6,700/- and Aayas should be paid Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore, the petitioners are eligible and entitled for regularization with all consequential benefits. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, 2017(1) SCC 148 . Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed various aspects considered by the various Hon’ble Courts and held as follows: “42.2. The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant is in a “different department” vis-à-vis the reference post does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Persons discharging identical duties cannot be treated differently in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of the Government (see Randhir Singh Case and D.S.Nakara Case). … 42.5. Persons discharging identical duties cannot be treated differently in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of the Government (see Randhir Singh Case and D.S.Nakara Case). … 42.5. In determining equality of functions and responsibilities under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, it is necessary to keep in mind that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible (See Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers case and SBI’s case). The nature of work of the subject post volume of work should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”….. ….. 44.4. In Daily Rated Casual Labour case, this Court held, that under the principle flowing from Article 38(2) of the Constitution, the Government could not deny a temporary employee, at least the minimum wage being paid to an employee in the corresponding regular cadre, along with dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance, as well as, all the other benefits which were being extended to casual workers. It was also held, that the classification of workers (as unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled), doing the same work, into different categories for payment of wages at different rates, was not tenable. It was also held, that such an act of an employer would amount to exploitation. And further that the same would be arbitrary and discriminatory, and therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ….. 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”. 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. ….. ….. 54.1. A perusal of the above conclusion drawn in the impugned judgment (passed by the Full Bench), reveals that the Full Bench carved out an exception for employees, who were not appointed against regular sanctioned posts, if their services had remained continuous (with notional breaks, as well) for a period of 10 years. This category of temporary employees was extended the benefit of wages at the minimum of the regular pay scale. In Umadevi case, similarly, employees who had rendered 10 years service were granted an exception (refer to para 53 of the judgment extracted in the proceeding paragraph). The above position adopted by the High Court reveals, that the High Court intermingled the legal position determined by this Court on the subject of regularization of employees, while adjudicating upon the proposition of pay parity, emerging employees, while adjudicating upon the proposition of pay parity, emerging under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. In our view, it is this mixup, which has resulted in the High Court recording its afore-extracted conclusions”. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Hon’ble Apex Court rightly held in the decision cited supra that 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, which is binding in this case also. The parameters of the principle have been extended to the temporary employees viz., contract, casual, ad hoc etc., and therefore in the case of the petitioners also, they are eligible and entitled for the relief as claimed in the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to consider the services of the petitioners for regularization with all consequential benefits in terms of the decision “State of Punjab and Others Vs. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to consider the services of the petitioners for regularization with all consequential benefits in terms of the decision “State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, wherein it was held as follows: “10. ...When the services of the respondent had not been regularized, his appointment was on temporary basis on consolidated pay and he had not undergone the process of regular recruitment, direction to give regular pay-scale could not be given that too without examining the relevant factors to apply the principles of “equal pay for equal work”. It is clear from the averments made in the writ petition extracted above, nothing is stated as regards the nature of work, responsibilities attached to the respondent without comparing them with the regularly recruited Junior Assistants. .,” 9. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of principle of “equal pay for equal work” in relation to temporary employees i.e daily wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis etc., the sole factor that requires for determination would be whether the petitioners is rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as he being discharged by regular employees, holding the same posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. There can be no doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post. But the 2nd respondent without considering the case of the petitioners, simply passed impugned order dated 19.06.2017, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. 10. This Court finds that an employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Such act besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any act of paying less wages as compared to other similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Such act besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any act of paying less wages as compared to other similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. In similar circumstances of this case in nature, this Court passed several judgments to direct the respondents to extend the benefit to the employees by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years of service on or before 25.11.1993 for the purpose of pension and pensaionary benefits, but shall not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period in the form of arrears of pay or allowances. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the material on record and considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court has no hesitation to allow the writ petition as prayed for in the light of the decisions relied on by the petitioners. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, while setting aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent is declaring as illegal and arbitrary and same is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of completion of five years of their respective service with all consequential benefits, within four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.