RAJENDRA SAXENA, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that order dated 1. 6. 1989 (Annex. 4) issued by respondent No. 1 and the order dated 24. 3. 1983 (Annex, 3) issued by respondent No. 2 be quashed and that they be directed to make payment of his salary in the regular pay scale prescribed for the post of Junior Accountant w. e. f. his date of initial appointment, on the principle of equal pay for equal work and also to regularise his services on the said post.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a temporary Junior Accountant on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 30/- per day by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Shergarh (respondent No. 1) vide office order dated 25. 3. 1988 (Annex. 2) on purely temporary basis till the regularly selected candidates were made available in pursuance of the directions given by respondent No. 2's letter dated 7-3-1988 (Annex. 1) in the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP)/rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP ). THE petitioner joined is duties on 24-3-1988. THEre after the respondent No. 2 by his impugned letter dated 24-3-1989 (Annex. 3) directed all the Vikas Adhikaris, Chief Executives of Zila Parishads of Panchayat Samitis to dispense with the services of all temporary or daily rated employees working in the Panchayat Samitis after complying with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (briefly the Act ). In pursuance of the said letter Annex. 3, respondent No. 1 by his letter dated 1-6-1989 (Annex. 4) gave the petitioner one month's notice under section 25 F of the Act and also mentioned therein that the petitioner's services shall come to an end w. e. f. 30-6-1989. THE petitioner has alleged that the post of Junior Accountant is still lying vacant and that duly selected persons are not available and as such it was not open for the respondents to dispense with his services, that the letter Annex. 3 has been issued in arbitrary exercise of power as well as the same amounts to unfair labour practice and that the mandatory conditions precedent for the retrenchment as envisaged in Section 25 F (B) of the Act have also not been complied with, and therefore, (he impugned termination order Annex. 4 is illegal and void ab initio. THE petitioner has also contended that he is entitled to get the regular pay scale of the Junior Accountant on the basis of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', that his services should be regularised and that the impugned orders Annex. 3 & Annex. 4 be quashed. THE petitioner also filed a stay petition and this Court vide its order dated 28. 6. 1989 passed an interim order that the services of the petitioner shall not be terminated in pursuance of order Annexure-4 and as such the petitioner continued in service. The respondents in their counter have resisted the writ petition and averred that the petitioner was appointed as a daily rated Junior Accountant on purely ad hoc basis till the availability of the selected Junior Accountant from the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. It has been asserted that as regularly selected candidate has now been posted as Junior Accountant in the Panchayat Samiti, Shergarh vide Government Order dated 21. 1. 1991 (Annex. R/l), no such vacancy exists. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was appointed under the NREP/rlegp Scheme and thereafter he was continued under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana and that both the schemes have been exempted from the provisions of the Act vide Government Notifications dated 16-6-1988 and 29-8-1991 Annex. R/2 & Annex. R/3, and therefore, the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act can not be pressed into service. An additional affidavit of Shri Sultan Singh, Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Shergarh has also been filed, wherein, he has deposed that the petitioner has already resigned from the service w. e. f. 26-6-1992 and that the post of Junior Accountant in the Panchayat Samiti under the said scheme has also been abolished by the Government w. e. f. 28-2-1992 and that the petitioner is neither entitled for the grant of regular pay scale nor regularisation in service. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder or a counter affidavit. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically admitted that the petitioner has already resigned from service w. e. f. 23-6-1992. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate at length and perused the relevant record. A bare perusal of the Notification No. F. 1 (1) Labour/88 dated 21. 5. 1988 (Annex, R/2) and notification no. F 1 (1) Lobour/188 dated 5-8-1989 published in Rajasthan Gazette on 29-8-1991 (Annex. R/3) reveals that the appropriate Government in exercise of its powers under section 36 B of the Act has exempted National Rural Employment Programme and National Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme undertaken by the Special Schemes organisation and Integrated Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department from the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of section 25 F of the Act. There is also no dispute that the petitioner has already resigned from the post of Junior Accountant w. e. f. 23-6-1992.
(3.) NOW only controversy, which remains to be resolved is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the regular pay scale of Junior Accountant for the period during which he has worked on the said post. In Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Admn. , (1) the petitioners were employed on daily wages basis under the NREP and RLEGP schemes, which were later on merged in the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana by the DRDA. They claimed regular pay on the basis of equal work for equal pay and also for their regularisation in service. The Apex Court dismissed their writ petition and held as under : - "it is apparant that the schemes under which the petitioners were given employment have been evolved to provide income for those who are below the poverty line and particularly during the periods when they are without any source of livelihood and, therefore, without any income whatsoever. The schemes3vere further meant for the rural poor, for the object of the schemes was to start tackling the problem of poverty from that end. The object was not to provide the right to work as such even to the rural poor-much less to the unemployed in general. . . . . (1) If the resources used for the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana were in their entirety to be used for providing full employment throughout the year, they would have given employment only to a small percentage of the population in need of income, the remaining vast majority being left with no income whatsoever. No fault could, therefore, be found with the limited object of the scheme given the limited resources at the disposal of the State. Those employed under the scheme, therefore, could not ask for more than what the scheme intended to give them. To get an employment under such scheme and to claim on the basis of the said employment, a right to regularisation, is to frustrate the scheme itself. No court can be a party to such exercise. It is wrong to approach the problems of those employed under such schemes with a view to providing them with full employment and guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. These concepts, in the context of such schemes are both unwarranted and misplaced. The will do more harm than good by depriving the many of the little income that they may get to keep then from starvation. They would benefit a few at the cost of the many starving poor for whom the schemes are meant. That would also force the State to wind up the existing schemes and forbid them from introducing the new ones, for want of resources. This is not to say that the problems of the unemployed deserve no consideration or sympathy. This is only to emphasise that even among the unemployed a distinction exists between those who live below and above the poverty line, those in need of partial and those in need of full employment, the educated and uneducated, the rural and urban unemployed etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Although there is Employment Exchange Act which requires recruitment on the basis of registration in the Employment Exchange, it has become a common practice to ignore the Employment Exchange and the persons registered in the Employment Exchanges, and to employ and get employed directly those who are either not registered with the Employment Exchange or who though registered are lower in the long waiting list in the Employment Register. The courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal considerations including money. The employment is given first for temporary period with technical breaks to circumvent the relevant rules, and is continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of regularisation knowing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularised. A good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in a new source of corruption and frustration of thos who are waiting at the Employment Exchanges for years. Not all those who gain such back-door entry in the employment are in need of the particular jobs. Though already employed elsewhere, they join the jobs for better and secured prospects. That is why most of the cases which come to the courts are employment in Government Departments, Public Undertakings or agencies. Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour. The other equally injurious effect of indiscriminate regularisation has been that many of the agencies have stopped though they are urgent and essential for fear that if those who are employed on such works are required to be continued for 240 or more days have to be absorbed as regular employees although the works are time-bound and there is no need of the workmen beyond the completion of the works under-taken. The public interests are thus jeopardised on both counts. " In view of this authoritative pronouncement, the petitioner is not entitled for the pay in regular pay scale as the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' does not apply in such a case. The petitioner was appointed as daily rated Junior Accountant purely on temporary basis till the availability of selected Junior Accountant. In the instant case as per office order dated 21. 1. 1991 (Annex. R/1) Shri Pukh Raj Bamania, who was duly selected by the R. P. S. C. was appointed in Panchayat Samiti, Shergarh. Therefore, the post of Junior Accountant was not vacant. Since the petitioner continued in service even after 30. 6. 1989 in view of this Court's ad-interim order dated 28. 6. 1989 and has now resigned from the service, the question of quashing the impugned orders Annexures-P/3 and Annexure-P/4 does notarise, and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. ;