Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mejor Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 December, 2022

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19063/2022

1. Mejor Singh S/o Prem Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, 22 Asb, Garsana, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

2. Balvinder Singh S/o Gurdev Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, 6Dd, Garsana, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

3. Anil Kumar S/o Mahaveer Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/ o Ward No. 4, 7 Dd, Garsana, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

4. Hargovind Singh S/o Mohar Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ward No 6, 5 Dd, Garsana, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

5. Satpal Singh S/o Gurdev Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ward No 8, 21 Asa, Garsana, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

6. Amar Chand S/o Shri Heera Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/ o Panchayat Samiti Dudu, Tehsil And District- Jaipur, Rajasthan.

7. Anandi Lal Verma S/o Late Shri Chunni Lal Verma, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Balai Mohalla, Basari, Khurd, Districtjaipur, Rajasthan.

8. Banshi Lal S/o Devaram Raigar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Village- Devia, Tehsil- Maujamaabad Dudu, Boraj, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

9. Bhanwar Lal Sharma S/o Hari Shankar Sharma, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Naruka Ka Mohalla, Bhim Singh District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

10. Banshidhar Yadav S/o Suwa Lal Yadav, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Idean Ka Bas, Kalwad, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

11. Chandra Prakash S/o Ramdev Jat, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Jaevlya Ki Dhani, Sursinghpura, Malyawas, Tehsil And District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

12. Badri Prasad S/o Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Peethyawas, Chainpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

13. Bhanwar Lal S/o Chhotu Ram Jat, Aged About 47 Years,

(2 of 6) [CW-19063/2022]

R/o Peepli Ka Bas, Postmaliyawas, Phulera District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

14. Babulal Kumavat S/o Shri Panne Lal Kumavat, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Chani Chandapur, Bobas, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

15. Chandra Kant Yadav S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Sanwat Ka Bax, Baseri Khurd. District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

16. Chaturabhuj Kumhar S/o Shri Mansharam, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Kumharo Ka Mohalla, Ramnagar, Harsauli District Jaipur,rajasthan.

17. Chhotu Khan S/o Shri Kalu Kha, Aged About 72 Years, R/ o Barbara Ki Dhani, Naraina, Khohrs, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

18. Dashrath Singh S/o Shri Ishwar Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Rajput Mohalla, Urseva, Dudu, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan.

19. Devi Chand S/o Shri Padana Ram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Raigar Basti, Savarda, District Jaipur Rajasthan.

20. Durga Sahay Sharma S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Agarapura, Dehra, Jobner, Distiret Jaipur, Rajasthan.

21. Durga Lal Bajya S/o Shri Rugha Ran Bajya, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Gunanpura, Tehsil Phulers, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

22. Ganesh Ram Prajapat S/o Shri Narayan Prajapat, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Kumkharo Ka Mohalls, Beejolac, Nanan, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

23. Govind Ram S/o Lakha Ram Jat, Aged About 67 Years, R/ o Dogivalo Ka Bas, Bhadva, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

24. Ghisa Lal Mandarwal S/o Shri Mangla Ram Mandarwal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Dhana Ka Bas, Jaipur, Karansar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan

25. Ganga Ram S/o Shri Gopi, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Kumbhawali Talai, Luniawas District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

26. Gopal Lal Takhar S/o Shri Nola Ram Takhar, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Kakdwali Dhani Badhai, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

27. Ganpat Ram Jat S/o Shri Chhotu Ram, Aged About 52

(3 of 6) [CW-19063/2022]

Years, R/o Chetali Dhani, Hingoniya District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

28. Hanuman Lal Kumawat S/o Bhanwar Lal Kumawat, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Asalpur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

29. Harinarayan Jat S/o Shri Ramdev, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Jato Ka Mohalla, Tejya Ka Bas, Teja Ka Bas, Phulera, District Jaipur Rajasthan.

30. Hanuwant Singh Manohar S/o Sugan Singh Manohar, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Chirnotiya, Murlipura, Jobner,district Jaipur, Rajasthan.

31. Hanuman Prasad Jat S/o Nanu Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ramjipura Khurd, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

32. Islam Khan S/o Shri Nazir Khan, Aged About 48 Years, R/ o Mustamano Ka Mohalla, Udaipuria, Hanan, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

33. Jagdish Prasad S/o Laxman Jat, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Chainpura, Phulera District- Jaipur, Rajasthan.

34. Jagdish Prasad S/o Chhitar Mal Jat, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Jat Mohalla, Pingun, Mozmabad, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

35. Jivan Lal Gurjar S/o Shri Savat Ram Gurjar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Bichoon, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan.

36. Jaysingh Khangarot S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh Khangarot, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Rajputo Bhimsingh, Ka Mohalla, Pratappura, Manda Districtjaipur, Rajasthan.

37. Jagdish S/o Shri Ramuram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Kalakh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

38. Kanhaya Lal S/o Shri Gulla Ram Jat, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Vidhut Line Ke Niche Ka Mohalla, Neemli, Mamana, Dudu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

39. Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary S/o Shri Khema Ram Choudhary, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Gadwalon Ki Dhani, Hamathpura, Bhainsawa, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

40. Kanhaiyalal Jangid S/o Shri Malaram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Nangal, Korsina, Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

41. Kajju Ram S/o Shri Rekharam, Aged About 70 Years, R/ojorpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

                                           (4 of 6)                  [CW-19063/2022]


                                                                    ----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. The Project Director, Atma, Office Of Deputy Director, Agriculture Extension, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Project Director, Atma, Office Of Deputy Director, Agriculture Extension, Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

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

6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

16/12/2022

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-19063/2022]

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-19063/2022]

4. The stay application is also disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 321-A.Arora/-