Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :
(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioners in the scale of Rs. 950-1,500 along with D.A., H.R.A., C.C.A., etc. which is being paid to the regular clerk/typists in the office of the respondents ;
(b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners on the post of clerk/typist in the office of respondent No. 2 ;
(c) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make paymentof difference of salary for which the petitioners are entitled in law in the scale of Rs. 950-1,500 plus other allowances and that of Rs. 30 per day, which is being paid to the petitioners at present along with arrears ;
(d) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioners as clerk/typists and not to make any artificial break in the service of the petitioners ;
(e) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to fill up two posts of typist/clerk in pursuance of their advertisement dated 26.2.1991 (Annexure-XXV) ;
(f) any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper ;
(g) award the costs of this petition to the petitioners.
3. At the time of filing the writ petition, this Court passed the following order on 7.1.1992 :
'Issue notice.
Until further orders of this Court, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioners on the posts held by them till regular appointments are made. It is further directed that the petitioner shall first be considered for appointment in preference to fresh consideration on the basis of their seniority and suitability.'
4. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as clerk/typist in the office, of respondent No. 2 vide appointment letter dated 5.6.1989 on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 20 per day.
5. Similarly petitioner No. 2 was appointed as clerk/typist in the office of respondent No. 2 vide appointment letter dated 2.4.1988 on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 20 per day.
6. According to the averments made in the writ petition, similarly situated employees were getting salary in the scale of Rs. 950-1,500 alongwith D.A., H.R.A., C.C.A. and other allowances. An application was moved by the petitioners claiming parity in the salary. By an order dated 13.12.1993 this Court directed the respondents to pay the same salary, which is being paid to the regular class-III employees.
7. A supplementary affidavit has been filed along with an application before this Court that the petitioners obtained certified copy of the said order on 13.12.1993 and filed the same before respondents, but they were not paid the same salary, which was being paid to the other regular class-III employees. In short, they were getting only basic pay plus D.A., but H.R.A. and C.C.A. were not included in the salary of the petitioners. Apart from it, the petitioners have also not been paid the salary for Sunday and other holidays, which was being paid to the regular employees.
8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India rules known as Uttar Pradesh (Outside the Purview of the U. P. Public Service Commission) Grade-C Regulation of Daily Wages Employees Rules, 1998. It is submitted that petitioners satisfied all the conditions mentioned in the said regulation for regularisation of their services vide decision of the Selection Committee dated 31.8.1998.
9. In view of the fact that petitioners' services have been regularised, now they only pray for reliefs (a) and (c) in the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court the averments made in paragraph 10 of the supplementary affidavit in which they have stated that Marut Nandan, Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Rajendra Prasad Tripathi, whose names find place at serial Nos. 2, 6 and 7 of the list respectively, have been granted annual increment with effect from 1.1.1992 ; whereas the said benefit has not been extended to the petitioners. It is further averred in paragraph 10 of the supplementary-affidavit that the Director, Local FundAccount Uttar Pradesh also wrote a letter dated 4.12.2000 to the Secretary Finance, Lekha Pariksha Anubhag to accord same benefit to the petitioners as has been given to the other similarly situated employees with effect from 1.1.1992. Copy of the letter has been annexed as Annexure-S.A. 1 to the supplementary-affidavit. A reminder dated 13.2.2001 was also sent, but the State Government has not taken any action in the matter. It has been stated that the benefit of annual increment, etc. has been given to Marut Nandan, Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Rajendra Prasad Tripathi on 18.11.1997 and the order of Deputy Director has also been approved by the Director, Local Fund vide order dated 20.11.1997.
10. The petitioners have vehemently argued that they are entitled to equal pay for equal work and are also entitled to annual increment from the date of judgment as has been given to the other similarly situated employees. There is no material on the basis of which it can be said that the petitioners are discharging same functions as has been discharged by the employees with whom they are claiming parity.
11. The counsel for the petitioners at this stage prays that a direction may be issued to the Secretary Finance to decide the representation of the petitioner and for this purpose he is permitted to submit a fresh representation within a month from today.
12. In this view of the matter, the ends of justice will be met if the Secretary Finance Is directed to take decision in the matter of the petitioners after considering all the factors applicable to the claim of the petitioners for equal pay for equal work.
13. Ordered accordingly. The Secretary Finance shall give an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned in prayers (a) and (c) to the writ petition and decide the matter within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order in accordance with law by a reasoned order.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs.