HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14331/2021
1. Gaji Ram S/o Shri Dadoo Ram, Aged About 36 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Sihadar, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer.
2. Shahnaz W/o Sh. Yashin Khan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Dhabba Para, Jaisalmer.
3. Smt. Reva W/o Sh. Chanda Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village And Post Mandai, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer.
4. Deepa Ram S/o Sh. Mulka Ram Meghwal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Kanod, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer.
5. Ram Lal S/o Sh. Raja Ram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village And Post Vandhar, Tehsil Raniwara, Dist. Jalore.
6. Smt. Kanta W/o Ved Prakash, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 375, Gali No. 4 Shiv Nagar, 3-E Chhoti, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner-
Cum-Director And Secretary To Government, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Assistant Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Jaisalmer.
3. The Assistant Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Jaisalmer.
4. The District Probation And Social Welfare Officer, Department Of Social Welfare, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 02/01/2023
1. Mr. Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present petition qua the petitioners Nos. 3, 5 and 6 with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition.
(Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:34:42 PM)(2 of 4) [CW-14331/2021]
2. With the liberty as prayed, the petition is dismissed qua petitioners Nos. 3, 5 and 6.
3. Petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 are aggrieved with the orders dated 15.09.2021(Annexure-2); 10.09.2021(Annexure-3) and 31.12.2020(Annexure-5); respectively passed by the respondents, whereby, the representation(s) made by the petitioner(s) have been rejected.
4. The petitioner No. 1, 2 and 4 had approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing writ petitions (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.7793/2020, 13032/2020 and 5761/2020, respectively), seeking directions to the respondents to make payment of wages to them at the minimum of the applicable pay scales.
5. This Court, on noticing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised was similar to Anokh Bai vs.State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.372/2013 & other connected matters decided on 25.04.2017 at Jaipur Bench, disposed of the petitions vide orders dated 11.09.2020, 21.01.2021 and 06.08.2020, directing the petitioners to file representation along with copy of the judgment in the case of Anokh Bai (supra) and the respondents were directed to decide the representation within a period of eight weeks in accordance with law and the law laid down in the case of Anokh Bai (supra).
6. The representation filed by the petitioners came to be decided by the impugned order, whereby, the Director and Joint Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment Department passed the order of following nature:-
(Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:34:42 PM)(3 of 4) [CW-14331/2021] "ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ ds izdj.k eas ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 25-04-2017 es prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure fn, tkus gsrq in dh vko';d ;ksX;rk ds lac/k esa bl izdkj mYys[k gS & To become entitle for minimum of the pay scale, one has to show required qualification and working against the sanctioned post.
prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ikapoha mRrh.kZ gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vH;kosnu dk lgk;d funs"kd] lkU;kvfo] tSlyesj ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd Jherh "kgukt dks fnukad 01-09-2016 dks IysleasV ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls dk;Z ij j[kk x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij ;kph yxHkx 05 o"kZ ls dk;Z dj jgh gS rFkk lgk;d funs"kd] lkU;kvfo] tSlyesj }kjk dk;Z larks"ktud crk;k x;k gSA budh tUe frfFk 01-01-1981 gksus ds vk/kkj ij vk;q 41 o"kZ ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk pkSFkh d{kk mRrh.kZ gSA Jherh "kkgukt] vuks[k ckbZ ,oa iatkc LVsV o vU; cuke txthr flag o vU; ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in dh U;wure "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ,oa 10 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ ugha djus ds dkj.k prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru ds fy, ik=rk ugha j[krh gS A ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk foHkkxh; Nk=koklksa esa dk;Zjr va'kdkyhu jlksb;[email protected] ds laca/k esa fuf.kZr izdj.kksa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq foHkkx }kjk xfBr foHkkxh; lfefr }kjk Hkh ;kph dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ izdj.k esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh in dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru 17][email protected]& :i;s izfrekg ugha fn;s tkus dh vuq'ka"kk dh x;h gSA vr% ;kfpdkdrkZ dk vH;kosnu mDrkuqlkj vuks[k ckbZ izdj.k la[;k [email protected] ds fu.kZ; fnukad 25-04-2017 ds vuq:i ugha ik;k tkrk gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh ikyuk esa izLrqr vH;kosnu dk fuLrkj.k mijksDrkuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA"
(emphasis supplied)
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that identical writ petitions came to be disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 01.12.2022, passed in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3595/2022) and petitioners' case are also identical.
8. In the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), this Court has held thus:-
"A specific determination was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the said requirement was a result of intermingled legal position determined by the Supreme Court on the subject of regularization of employees while the issue before the Court was pay parity and that the determination was in teeth of the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India : (1988) 1 SCC 122.(Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:34:42 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-14331/2021]
In view of the above categorical
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aspect of period for which the petitioners are required to work for the purpose of getting minimum of the pay scale, the determination made by the respondents requiring the petitioners to have worked for a minimum of 10 years cannot be sustained.
In all the cases, on other aspects i.e. the minimum qualification and satisfactory working of the petitioners, the authority has held in favour of the petitioners.
In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 16.11.2021 (Annex.P/2), denying minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner only on account of him having worked for less than 10 years is quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner from the date the writ petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by this Court, as indicated hereinbefore.
Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order."
9. Following the judgment in the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), the present writ petition is also allowed.
10. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner No.1 - Gaji Ram, Petitioner No.2 - Shahnaz and petitioner No.4 - Deepa Ram from the date their writ petitions filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by this Court.
11. Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.
12. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 5-Arvind/-(Downloaded on 03/01/2023 at 08:34:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)