Alladeen Ali vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 975 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 858/2021

1. Alladeen Ali S/o Jafar Khan, Aged About 54 Years, Village Hamirwas Post Birmi Tehsil Malsisar District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

2. Ranveer Singh S/o Tarachand, Aged About 46 Years, Village Nayabas Post Patoda Panchayat Samiti Mandawa Tehsil Malsisar District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

3. Baluram S/o Pokar Ram, Aged About 52 Years, Village Birmi Panchayat Samiti Malsisar District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

4. Amarchand S/o Sohan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, Village Naya Bass Post Patoda Birmi Panchayat Samiti Mandawa Tehsil Malsisar District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

5. Ramswaroop S/o Shishupal, Aged About 48 Years, Village Chndwa Via Bisau Panchayat Samiti Mandawa Tehsil Malsisar District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

6. Radhey Shyam S/o Kesar Dev, Aged About 48 Years, Village Siriyasar Panchayat Samiti Mandawa Tehsil Malsisar District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

7. Omprakash S/o Chimnaram, Aged About 65 Years, Village Dhiloi Panchayat Samiti Mandawa Tehsil Malsisar District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

8. Ramniwas S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 47 Years, Village Shyampura Panchayat Samiti Mandawa Tehsil Malsisar District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

9. Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Kailash Chandra Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, Village Shyampura Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

10. Gopal Singh S/o Kanaram, Aged About 53 Years, Marigsar Post Nayasar Tehsil Jhunjhunu District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

11. Ummed Singh S/o Mamraj, Aged About 45 Years, Paniyo Ki Dhani Panchayat Smiati Bhagera Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

12. Subhash Chand S/o Harjul Singh, Aged About 46 Years, Village Dolatpura Post Chudela District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

13. Satyaveer Singh S/o Jairam, Aged About 44 Years, Village Marot Ka Pass Post Islampur District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

14. Mahesh Singh S/o Dilsukhram, Aged About 58 Years,

(2 of 4) [CW-858/2021]

Rahdo Ka Bass Tehsil Marodha Rampura Tehsil Malsisar District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

15. Shankar Lal Meena S/o Umrao Meena, Aged About 49 Years, Village Post Ktehpura Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

16. Shyam Sundar Meena S/o Tarachand Meena, Aged About 46 Years, Village Post Ktehpura Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

----Petitioners 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 Executiev Officer, Zila Parishad District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

6. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Vikram Choudhary
For Respondent(s)           :



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                  Judgment

14/01/2021

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

(3 of 4) [CW-858/2021]

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 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

(4 of 4) [CW-858/2021]

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.

4. The stay application is also disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

280-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)