Nayab Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 12224 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10105/2021

1. Nayab Singh S/o Jeet Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ward No. 01, Near Gurudwara, Bilochawala, Saranvavala, 9Lgw, Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

2. Bhagram S/o Maniram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Amarsinghwal, 39S Llw, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

3. Balwant Singh S/o Prithviraj, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Ward No. 04, Hardayalpura, 4Hdp, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

4. Dalip Kumar S/o Birbal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Gram Panchayat Jakharwali, Ward No. 01, 3Bhm, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

5. Banwari Lal S/o Hajariram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Chak 6 Hlm, Bagdiyawala, Jambdawali 5Spd, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

6. Lekhram Barbasa S/o Ramjas Barbas, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Dolatwali, Ward No. 02, 3T, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

7. Jeevraj S/o Manphul Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Ward No. 05, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

8. Mohan Lal S/o Lekhram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Ward No. 04, Pilibanga,, Village 1Nr, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

9. Sohan Singh S/o Chand Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Ahamdpura, 17Pbn District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

10. Jasveer Singh S/o Vatan Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Amarpura Dhani Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

11. Atma Ram S/o Dungarram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Near Sarkari Schook, Bilochwala, 2Lks, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

12. Brij Mohan S/o Devilal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Ahmedpura, 17 Pbn, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

(2 of 5) [CW-10105/2021]

13. Lalchand S/o Birbal Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Near Goga Ji Mandir, Devnagar 45 Ndr, Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

14. Balvir S/o Jangir Singh, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, 17Pbn, Ahmedpura, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

15. Mangla Ram S/o Bhura Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ward No. 14, 34 Stg, Hanumangarh, Chak 34, Pilibanga District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

16. Jagdish Prasad S/o Gopal Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Dabli Bas Chugta, Chak 2 Pbn, 25 Ssw, Dabli Rathan, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

17. Omprakash S/o Thana Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Ward No. 06, P.o. Rampura, 36 Stg-B, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

18. Jagdish S/o Fusaram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ward No. 06, 43 Mmk, Morjand Khari, Ganganagar, District Ganganagar (Raj.).

19. Pawan Kumar S/o Virendra Kumar, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ward No. 05, 43 Mmk, Morajandakhari, Ganganagar, District Ganganagar (Raj.).

20. Vedaprakash S/o Jay Mal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Near Thakurji Mandir, 43 Mmk, Morajandakhari, Ganganagar, District Ganganagar (Raj.).

21. Prithvi Raj S/o Raju Ram, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ward No. 08, 1Spm, Sadarpura, Ganganagar, District Ganganagar (Raj.).

22. Krishan Lal S/o Sheoykaran Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Jamlyat Singh Wala, 14 Sdp, Paniwali, Ganganagar, District Ganganagar (Raj.).

23. Darshan Singh S/o Gurdayal Singh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 8Sjm-A, Kamraniya, Ganganagar, District Ganganagar (Raj.).

24. Charan Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 23 Ps-C, Raisinghnagar, District Ganganagar (Raj.).

25. Amarjeet Singh S/o Balwant Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 9A, 2A, Ganganagar, District Ganganagar (Raj.).

                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                          ]



                                           (3 of 5)                  [CW-10105/2021]


                                    Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Director, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Ganganagar, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla
For Respondent(s)         :



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

05/08/2021

1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioners seeking reliefs

as indicated in the writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that their

representation may be considered by the respondents in light of

the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of

State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in (2017) 1

Supreme Court Cases 148. The relevant portion of the judgment

reads as under:

"60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor or that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were

(4 of 5) [CW-10105/2021]

being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post.

61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (- at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post."

3. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with

direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the

petitioners in terms of aforesaid judgment. The needful be done

within a period of 60 days from today.

(5 of 5) [CW-10105/2021]

4. The stay application is also disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

94-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)