Mejar Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7166 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4076/2021

1. Mejar Singh S/o Shri Gurdeep Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward No. 05, Po 1 Skm, 12 Gd, Tehsil Gharsana, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

2. Tara Chand S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Ward No. 04, 1 Skm-B, Tehsil Gharsana, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

3. Devi Lal S/o Shri Chunilal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 5 B Db 17 Knd-A, Khanuwali, Tehsil Gharsana, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

4. Indraj S/o Shri Dhanraj, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 04, Chak 27 Rjd, Tehsil Gharsana, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

5. Papu Ram S/o Shri Chanduram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Phulewala, 2 P.m., 2 Km, Tehsil Gharsana, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

6. Bohad Singh S/o Shri Jagar Singh, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village 9Dd, Teshil Gharsana, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

7. Bhani Ram S/o Shri Khetpal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward No.09, 6 Mld-B, Tehsil Gharsana, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

8. Nanak Singh S/o Shri Gurbachan Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ward No. 06, 1Mlk-C, Rojari, Tehsil Gharsana, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

9. Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Mal Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 01, Chak 1 Kn Miia, P.0.-12 Knd, Tehsil Gharsana, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

10. Arun Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, 12 Knd, Tehsil Gharsana, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

11. Harbhajan Singh S/o Shri Dogar Singh, Aged About 44 Years, Ward No. 13, Village 1Knm-A, Tehsil Gharsana, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

12. Amrit Paal S/o Shri Mahaveer Parsad, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ramdev Nagar, 4 Z, Tehsil And District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

(2 of 6) [CW-4076/2021]

13. Rajaram S/o Shri Sita Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Sardarpurabika, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

14. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Dungar Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Viilage Gopalsar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

15. Bhagirath S/o Shri Gopi Ram Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Sawantsar, 32 P.s-(B) (Dulrasar), Tehsil Raisingnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

16. Indraj S/o Shri Chanan Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village 25 P.t.d., Bishanpura, Tehsil Raisingnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

17. Sawarn Singh S/o Shri Nazar Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 22 P.t.d. Bishanpura, Tehsil Raisingnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

18. Kalwant Singh S/o Shri Jagatar Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village 43 P.s., Tehsil Raisingnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

19. Rajendra Prasad S/o Shri Bhagwan Ram Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village 12 N.r.d. Bishanpura Singdan, 35 L.n.p. Barawali, Tehsil Raisingnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

20. Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Harbans Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village 12 N.r.d. Bhishanpura Singdan, 12 N.r.d. Bishanpura, Tehsil Raisingnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

21. Badri Ram S/o Shri Gopi Ram Jat, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Khanta 36 P.s., Tehsil Raisingnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

22. Sahab Ram S/o Shri Ruda Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Bakhtawarpura, 2 B.k.s.m, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

23. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Shri Tejpal, Aged About 41 Years, R/ o Gram Panchayat Udaipur, 1 B.n.m, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

24. Aatma Ram S/o Shri Krishnalal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Gram Panchayat Udaipur, 1 B.n.m., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

25. Kalu Ram S/o Shri Raja Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Gram Panchayat Govindsar, 2 B.p.m., Tehsil Suratgarh,

(3 of 6) [CW-4076/2021]

District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

26. Krishna Lal S/o Shri Parma Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/ o Village 1 L.m, Surjansar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

27. Rajpal S/o Shri Brajlal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Gram Panchaya 29 G.b. (Shivpuri), Tehsil Vijaynagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

28. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Gugan Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Brijlalpura, Jodha Ka Bas, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunun (Raj.).

29. Anop Singh S/o Shri Bhal Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/ o Dudhawa, Panchayat Samiti Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunun (Raj.)

30. Harpal Singh S/o Shri Shishpal Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dudhawa, Panchayat Samiti Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunun (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through, The Secretary Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunun (Raj.).

4. The Block Development Officer, Shri Ganganagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

5. The Block Development Officer, Gharsana, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

6. The Block Development Officer, Raisingnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

7. The Block Development Officer, Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

8. The Block Development Officer, Vijaynagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

9. The Block Development Officer, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunun (Raj.).

10. The Block Development Officer, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunun (Raj.).

(4 of 6) [CW-4076/2021]

11. The Assistant Engineer, P.h.e.d, Shri Ganganagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

12. The Assistant Engineer, P.h.e.d, Gharsana, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

13. The Assistant Engineer, P.h.e.d, Raisingnagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

14. The Assistant Engineer, P.h.e.d, Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

15. The Assistant Engineer, P.h.e.d, Vijaynagar, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

16. The Assistant Engineer, P.h.e.d, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunun (Raj.).

17. The Assistant Engineer, P.h.e.d, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunun (Raj.).

                                                                   ----Respondents


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



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                  Judgment

15/03/2021

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,

(5 of 6) [CW-4076/2021]

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 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.

(6 of 6) [CW-4076/2021]

4. The stay application is also disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

151-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)