- (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri P.K. Sharma learned counsel has very fairly brought to the notice of the Court that in all three posts are available and at present there is no likelihood of terminating the service of the petitioner. As and when occasion arises for termination of Class IV employees, action will be taken by the University in^accordance with Law. In view of this statement of Shri Sharma, no further direction is necessary to be given so far as termination of the petitioner is concerned. The order of termination must be treated as having become infructuous.
(2.) Shri Bhandari, learned counsel, stated that the petitioner is doing the duties of Class IV employee but is not being paid regular salary of Class IV employees. From perusal of Annexure-3, it is clear that the petitioner, has been engaged on consolidated salary of Rs. 750/- per month. It is not in controversy that he is discharging the duties of a Class IV employee. Rajasthan Agricultural University Bikaner is a public authority and comes within the scope of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Principle of equal pay for equal work forms a part of equality clause enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution. In view of the various decisions of the Supreme Court commencing from Randhir Singh v. Union of India and others 1982(1) SCC 618 , Surinder Singh and another v. Engineer-In-Chief C.P.W.D. and others 1986(1) SCC 639 and also the decision of Supreme Court in Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka 1990(2) SCC 396 , it is directed that the petitioner should be given salary in the regular pay scale of the Class IV employees by being fixed at the minimum of the scale. He shall be entitled to allowances, if any admissible, in the pay scale of Class IV employees under the rules of the University. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition Allowed.;