Facts: The Petitioners, twenty-eight in number, were originally appointed to various posts such as Safai Kamgar, Clerk, and Peon by several Gram Panchayats. Following the merger of these Gram Panchayats and Municipal Councils into the Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation in 2009, the Petitioners continued their employment with the new Corporation. However, they were denied the revised pay scales and benefits of the Seventh Pay Commission, continuing to receive only minimum wages or lump-sum payments. The Municipal Corporation resisted their demand for parity, arguing that the Petitioners were appointed without following due process (no advertisements or tests) and that such "backdoor entries" could not be regularized or granted regular pay scales under the principles laid down in the Umadevi case.Procedural Posture: The Petitioners approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus for regular pay scales, arrears, and benefits of the Seventh Pay Commission.Issue: Whether the Petitioners, who were absorbed from Gram Panchayats into a Municipal Corporation, are entitled to pay parity with regular employees under the principle of "equal pay for equal work" despite the Corporation's claim of their appointments being irregular.Holding: Yes, the Court allowed the petition. It held that the Petitioners are entitled to complete parity in pay with regular employees discharging similar duties and directed the payment of arrears with 8% interest per annum.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is a constitutional goal deducible from Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, the Court emphasized that temporary, ad-hoc, or contractual employees cannot be paid less than regular employees if they perform the same duties and responsibilities. The Court rejected the Corporation's "backdoor entry" argument, noting that the Petitioners had been serving since 2009 and the nature of their work was indisputably similar to that of regular staff. Denying parity while extracting similar work was termed "exploitative enslavement" and a violation of human dignity. The Court further noted that even if regularization is a separate legal issue, pay parity for work already performed must be granted to avoid discrimination.