JAIN, J. - (1.) ­ Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in S.B.C.Writ Petition No. 260/93 decided on 13.2.1996 and D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 99/83 Mithalal vs. State of Ors. decided on 26.3.1993 and submits that petitioner who is admittedly working since 18.7.1986 is entitled to be paid minimum pay scale of Class IV employee from the date of his initial appointment along with arrears.
(2.) ON the other hand Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was not appointed against regular post. He submits that on the availability of post the services of Class IV employees are being regularised as per their turn according to seniority and before filing of the writ petition the petitioner is being paid minimum of pay scale, therefore, no direction is necessary. He relies on Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Vikram Chaudhary & Ors. (1), National Federation of P & T Employees vs. Union of India (2), Himmat Singh vs. State (3), Bhola Ram vs. State (4), Chaturbhuj Acharya vs. State (5), Sita Ram Mali vs. State (6), Jodha Ram vs. State (7), Babulal vs. New Delhi, Municipal Committee (8), Davendra Sharma vs. UOI (9), Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed Under P & T Dept. vs. Union of India (10), Pappu vs. State & Ors. (11), Shrikant Modak vs. Raj Agriculture University, Bikaner (12), Hem Raj vs. State (13), Natwar Lal Thanvi vs. State (14). He submits that in all such cases daily wages employees have been granted minimum of pay from the date of filing writ petition and these cases have not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge while delivering the judgment in S.B.C.W.Petition No. 260/93 (Puran Ram vs. State), so the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of minimum pay scale from the date of initial appointment.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the counsel for the respondents. It is settled that so long as there is no regular post available for appointment the question of making pay to daily wage employee at par with the regular employees does not arise. However, such employees cannot be denied minimum of pay scale.;