Mada Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5585 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5585 Raj
Judgement Date : 18 April, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mada Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 April, 2022

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5409/2022

1. Mada Ram S/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Chawandiya, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur (Raj.).

2. Madan Singh S/o Bhojaraj Singh, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Village & Post Dheengsara, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur (Raj.).

3. Raju Ram S/o Shiv Lal, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Village Aandolav, Post Bhundel, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Public Health And Engineering Department (PHED), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Secretary, Panchayat Raj And Rural Development, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

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

4. District Collector, Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

5. Superintending Engineer, Department Of Public Health And Engineering Department (PHED) Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Khinvsar, District Nagaur (Raj.).

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Pawan Singh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment / Order

18/04/2022

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking reliefs

as indicated in the writ petition.

                                          (2 of 3)                   [CW-5409/2022]


     Learned    counsel      for     the     petitioner         prayed   that   his

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 fact 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

(3 of 3) [CW-5409/2022]

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 payscale 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."

Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with

direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the

petitioner in terms of aforesaid judgment. The needful be done

within a period of 60 days from today.