Homji Bhuriya vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14678 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 14678 Raj
Judgement Date : 14 December, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Homji Bhuriya vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 December, 2022

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16289/2021

Homji Bhuriya S/o Nagji, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Bhil (S.T.), Aged About 34 Years, R/o Gram Badupada, Tehsil Kushalgarh, District Banswara. Presently Working As Cook In Govt. Ambedkar Boys Hostel Badi Sarwa, District Banswara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director, Social Welfare Department, Jaipur.

3. Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Banswara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahipal Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

14/12/2022 I.A. No.1/2022:

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present

application seeking impleadment of party respondent.

The application is dismissed as withdrawn.

I.A. No.2/2022:

Considering that the matter stands covered by the decision

of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.12.2022, rendered

in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.3595/2022), the application seeking early hearing is

allowed. The matter is taken up today itself.

(2 of 4) [CW-16289/2021]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16289/2021:

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 15.09.2021 (Annex.P/2), passed by the

respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner

has been rejected.

The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion

by filing writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3769/21),

seeking directions to the respondents to make payment of wages

to him at the minimum of the applicable pay scales.

This Court, on noticing the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner 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 petition directing the petitioner 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).

The representation filed by the petitioner came to be decided

by the impugned order, whereby, the Director and Joint Secretary,

Social Justice and Empowerment Department passed the following

order :-

"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 dh vksj ls muds vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr fjizstsaVs'ku dk lgk;d funs'kd] lkU;kvfo] ckalokM+k ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd Jh gkseth Hkwfj;k dks fnukad 01-11-2019 dks IysleasV ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls dk;Z ij j[kk x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij ;kph yxHkx 02 o"kZ ls dk;Z dj jgk gS rFkk budh tUe frfFk 04-04-

(3 of 4) [CW-16289/2021]

1987 gksus ds vk/kkj ij vk;q 34 o"kZ ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ikapoha d{kk mRrh.kZ gSA Jh gkseth Hkwfj;k] 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 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[krk 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 dk 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)

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner's case is also identical.

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.

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

(4 of 4) [CW-16289/2021]

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."

Following the judgment in the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra),

the present writ petition is also allowed.

The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of

minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner from the date his writ

petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by

this Court.