A.K Mathur, J.:— In this batch of writ petitions as contained, in Schedule A appended to this order, common questions of law is involved. Therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions were all appointed as Teachers in the various Panchayat Samitis. The appointment of the petitioners as Teachers was first for fixed term and thereafter they were continued in the service by the orders passed from time to time. In most of the writ petitions, the incumbents have completed 240 days. But in some of the writ petitions issue has been joined that some of the incumbents have not completed 240 days. It is unfortunate that these lowly paid teachers are forced to resort to file these writ petitions from time to time as the orders of termination are passed in most irresponsible manner, notwithstanding that number of times this Court and the Apex Court has already emphasised that proper care should be taken in dealing with these lowly paid teachers.

3. Before dealing with these cases, we propose to refer certain settled propositions of law which is involved in these cases and which have been referred by the learned counsel.

4. It has been established by series of the judgments, of this Court that the Panchayat Samitis are industries and the incumbents are entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this connection, reference may be made to Jeth Mal v. State of Rajasthan( 1965 W.L.N (N.C) 537), wherein it was observed as under:

“Panchayat Samiti is an industry, therefore, compliance of Section 25-F of the Act is must and there is no escape from that. In the present case, it is apparent that the termination order has been passed without compliance of Section 25-F (a) and (b) of the Act.”

5. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Panchayat Samiti, Kotdi v. Bheroolal (D.B Civil Special Appeal No. 2/75 decided on September 5, 1984) wherein it has been held that the Panchayat Samiti is an industry. Reference has also Page: 881been made to Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa( 1978 (36) F.L.R 266 (S.C)).

6. Notwithstanding that the Panchayat Samiti have been treated as Industry still the Panchayat Samitis are loosely passing the orders terminating the services of the incumbents without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

7. It has also been established by the Apex Court and by this Court also that the incumbents, who are discharging the same duties are entitled to equal pay. In this connection, reference may be made to Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P( 1986 (52) F.L.R 147 (S.C)), wherein it was observed as under:

“Casual workers on daily wages basis (engaged by Government in different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country) performing the same duties as performed by regular class IV employees against sanctioned posts. Held, entitled to salary and conditions of service on par with the regular workers. It is not open to Government to deny such bene fits to casual workers on ground of their acceptance of employment with full knowledge of their disadvantage. Such denial would be violative of Article 14. Practice of employing casual workers in organisations which are in existence for long (12 years) on ground of the organisa-tions being temporary deprecated and sanction of posts recommended for regularisation of such workers. However, in absence of sanctioned posts for the present they cannot be regularised.”

8. Learned counsel also relied upon Surinder Singh v. The Engineer in Chief, C.P.W.D( 1986 (52) F.L.R 216 (SC)); Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana( (1987) 4 SCC 634 , A.I.R 1987 S.C 2049); Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P. & T. Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India( 1987 (55) F.L.R 842 (S.C)); U.P Income-tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association v. Union of India( 1988 (56) F.L.R 121) and Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union (Regd.) v. P.L Singh( 1988 (56) F.L.R 209).

9. In Surinder Singh's case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:

“The persons employed on a daily wage basis in the Central Public Works Department are entitled not only to daily wages but are entitled to the same wages as other permanent employees in the Department employed to do the identical work. In this connection, it cannot be said that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is a mere abstract doctrine and that it is not capable of being enforced in a court of law. The Central Government, the State Governments Page: 882and likewise, all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments that the principle of equal pay for equal, work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a court of law should ill-come from the mouths of the State and undertakings.”

10. Following the same ratio their Lordships of the Supreme Court reiterated the same proposition in Bhagwan Dass's case (supra) wherein it was observed as under:

“When the duties and functions discharged and work done by the supervisors appointed on regular basis and those appointed on tempo rary basis in the education department are similar, the fact that the scheme under which temporary appointments are made is a temporary scheme and the posts are sanctioned on an year to year, basis having regard to the temporary nature of the scheme cannot be a factor which could be invoked for violating “equal pay for equal work” doctrine. Whether appointments are for temporary periods and the schemes are temporary in nature is irrelevant once it is shown that the, nature of the duties and functions discharged and the work done is similar and the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is attracted.”

11. Similarly, in Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P. & T. Department's case (supra) it was observed as under:

“The State cannot deny to casual labourers at least the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen even though the Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees. Such denial amounts to exploitation of labour. The Government cannot take advantage of, its dominant position, and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starving wages. It may be that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages. That he has done because he has no other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that State., The Government should be a model employer.”

12. Similarly, in a recent decision their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in U.P Income-tax Department's case (supra) reiterated the same principle and observed as under:

“Workmen employed as contingent paid staff of Income Tax Department. Many of such Class IV employees found to be working on daily wages for nearly eight years or more. Supreme Court in view of its decision ( 1987 (55) F.L.R 842) directed the Government to pay wages to such workman at the rates equivalent to minimum pay in pay scale of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres. Supreme Court also directed to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing-such employees who have been continuously working for more than one year.”

13. Similarly, in Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union's case (supra) the vaccinators/immunisors who were working on daily wages were directed to be paid the minimum pay in the pay scale, of regularly employed vaccinators/immunisors.

14. In these judgments, the Lordships have emphasised that by virtue of Article 39(d) of the Constitution, the incumbents who are discharging the same duties are entitled to be paid same pay but without any increments.

15. Likewise, it has also been established by the Apex Court that temporary/ad hoc employees who have been appointed for an academic session, their services should not be terminated before the close of the session and they should be denied the salary during the vacation period. This has been found to be arbitrary and unfair practice. Reference in this connection may be made to Ratan Lal v. State of Harayana( (1985) 4 SCC 43 , A.I.R 1987 S.C 478) In this case a similar situation arose as in these cases. A large number of teachers were appointed on ad hoc basis and they were appointed for academic session only. Thereafter; their services were terminated after the end of the academic sessions depriving them the salary of the vacation. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court deprecated this practice and directed the State of Haryana to fill up the posts in accordance with the rules and stop this ad hoc arrangement. In this connection, it was observed as under:

“The number of teachers in the State of Haryana who are thus appointed on such ad hoc basis is very large indeed. If the teachers had been appointed regularly, they would have been entitled to the benefits of summer vacation along with the salary and allowances payable in respect of that period and to all other privileges such as casual leave, medical leave, maternity leave etc., available to all the Government servants. These benefits are denied to those ad hoc teachers unreasonably on account of this pernicious system of appointment adopted by the State Government. These ad hoc teachers are unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary hiring and firing policy.”

16. It was further observed in the aforesaid case:

“We, therefore; direct the State Government to take immediate steps to fill up in accordance with the relevant rules the vacancies in which teachers appointed on ‘an’ ad hoc basis are now working and to allow all those teachers who are now holding these posts on ad hoc basis to remain those post till the vacancies are duly filled up.” It was also observed by their Lordships:

“We strongly deprecate the policy of the State Government under which ad hoc teachers are denied the salary and allowances for the period of the summer vacation by resorting to the fictional breaks of the type referred to above. These ad hoc teachers shall be paid salary and allowances for the period of summer vacation as long as they hold the office under this order.”

17. In our State also the position is not too happy and the observations made by their Lordships in Ratan Lal's case (supra) referred to above are equally applicable to the whole lot of the Education Department.

18. Liearned counsel for the parties have also referred to the statement made by Minister for Panchayat and Minister for Education Page: 884wherein it has been pointed out that thene are 3000 posts of teachers are available and under the operation of Black Board Scheme, the services of these teachers will be utilised. In the background of these premises, we propose to examine the cases of all these teachers and propose to lay down that in future the Panchayat Samitis and the State of Rajasthan should form a uniform policy so that these lowly paid employees may not have to resort to litigation and may not burden their limited resources and equally avoid burden to the State exchequer.

19. Now adverting to the facts of the present cases. In these batch of writ petitions most of the teachers were appointed for fixed academic sessions and their services were terminated notwithstanding the fact that they have completed 240 days. Some of the teachers are still working and they are not paid the minimum pay scale of the teachers. But they are paid a sum of Rs. 400.00 per month. The payment of this paltry sum of Rs. 400.00 is also denied to them during the summer vacation. These three grievances of the petitioners in these batch of writ petitions appear to be well founded. In most of the cases, the services of the petitioners have been terminated at the end of the academic session notwithstanding the fact that they have completed 240 days. This practice cannot be allowed to continue and it should be clearly understood that after the series of decisions of this Court that the Panchayat Samitis is Industry and the services of teachers who have completed 240 days cannot be terminated Without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. Likewise, in the present cases, all the teachers are not paid equal pay for equal work. All the teachers are serving in the Panchayat Samitis and they are discharging the same duties of teaching as are being discharged by the regularly appointed teachers. Still these ad hoc teachers are paid a fixed remuneration of Rs. 400.00 per month and they are not paid the similar pay scale as is applicable to the teachers serving with the Panchayat Samitis on regular basis.

21. In view of the ratio laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as mentioned above, all these teachers who are working in the Panchayat Samitis are entitled to the minimum pay scale applicable to the teachers in the cadre concerned in the Panchayat Samiti. The payment of paltry sum of Rs. 400.00 per month to them is absolutely undesirable and this practice should be stopped. All the teachers would be entitled to the minimum pay scale of the cadre concerned who are serving in the Panchayat Samitis or in the State of Rajasthan.

22. Similarly, the practice of terminating the services of the teachers at the end of the academic sessions is also not healthy one. It has been found to be arbitrary. The policy of hire and fire cannot be sustained. As observed in Ratan Lal's case (supra), this practice was deprecated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the same practice which has been adopted by the State of Rajasthan and the Panchayat Samitis cannot be appreciated. Therefore, all the teachers when they are appointed, they are entitled to the salary for the summer vacation.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that it is not the case that the posts are not available with the State of Rajasthan or the Panchayat Samitis in view of the Statements made by the Hon'ble Page: 885Ministers on the floor of the Assembly that there are 3000 posts available in various Panchayat Samitis in the State. When the posts are available the incumbents are also available and they desire to serve then there is no reason to terminate their services.

24. It has also been urged that in some of the Panchayat Samitis the services of the incumbents were terminated because the regularly recruited and trained teachers are available. It should be clearly understood that we do not propose to lay down that when the regular recruitments take place the services of the incumbents cannot be dispensed with. What we propose to lay down is that ad hocism should come to an end so that the scope of arbitrariness is reduced to the minimum. If the regular recruitments take place then there is no difficulty in recruiting the teachers on regular basis so that they will be entitled to regular pay scale and they will not be denied the pay of the summer vacation. But till the regular selection takes place in the Panchayat Samitis then in that case all such ad hoc teachers should be entitled to the benefits as mentioned above. If such benefits are denied to them then they will have to resort to legal remedies available to them. But if proper guidelines were given to the appointing authorities in the State of Rajasthan or the Panchayat Samitis then these lowly paid teachers may not be subjected to policy of hire and fire and forced to resort to litigation.

25. After conclusion of the arguments, learned counsel also brought to our notice a Government Circular issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Panchayat Department directing all the Panchayat Samitis that a list of untrained teachers who were drawing a sum of Rs. 400.00 per month may be sent to them so that these untrained teachers may be got trained through correspondence courses. It was contended that the Government itself is very much concerened about the plight of these untrained teachers but still nothing substantial has been done. It is urged that a direction should also be given to get these untrained teachers trained in pursuance of the above communication issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Panchayat Department.

26. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to Dr. A.K Jain etc. v. Union of India ( 1987 Supp SCC 497), wherein the services of the ad hoc Doctors were terminated on account of U.P.S.C selected candidates made available for appointment. These doctors whose services were terminated approached the Supreme Court by filing petitions against their termination. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that after all the doctors who were appointed on ad hoc basis upto October, 1984 shall be regularised in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission on the evaluation of their work and conduct on the basis of their confidential reports in respect of the period subsequent to October 1, 1982. The doctors so regularised shall be appointed on the post concerned and they should be given all the benefits. It was directed that if they were not found suitable they will be at liberty to terminate the services of those doctors. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a very liberal view in such matters and has observed that the ad hoc employees who have remained in service for long time should Page: 886not be thrown on the road in an arbitrary fashion. Be that as it may, we propose to give direction for ameliorating conditions of such lowly paid teachers. The direction which we propose to give will redress the griev ances of these teachers to a larger extent. In the result, all these writ petitions are allowed and we direct that all the petitioners whose services, have been terminated shall be entitled to one month's salary in the minimum pay scale admissible to the cadre with Dearness Allowance or Additional Dearness Allowance admissible in-accordance with law but will not be entitled to grade increment and they will be re-employed in the next academic session to continue till the regular selections take place (of course subject to availability of vacancies). Amongst these class of persons if trained teachers are available then pri-ority shall be given to the trained teachers. Those teachers who are already serving shall be paid the minimum of pay scale admissible to the particular cadre concerned with Dearness Allowance or Additional Dearness Allowance admissible according to law. They will continue till regular selections take place. They will not be entitled to any grade in-; crements. However, they will be entitled to salary for the vacation period as well. The State Government is also directed to get the untrained teachers trained in view of the communication referred to above so that these lowly paid teachers may improve their prospects for the employment in phased programme. No orders as to costs.

27. A copy of this judgment may be sent to the Director, Primary Edu-cation; Government of Rajasthan, Secretary/Director, Panchayat and Community Development Department with the direction that he shall issue directions in the light of this judgment to all the Panchayat Samitis so as to prevent future litigation. Copy of this judgment shall also be sent to the Panchayat Samitis, Shergarh, Mandal and Jayal for compliance.