Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rupnath 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. 19014/2022

1. Rupnath S/o Sohannath, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Suratgarh, 5 Rm, Ragunathpura, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

2. Mukhram S/o Pannaram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ward No 5, Suratgarh, 5 Rm, Raghunathpura, District Gangangar, Rajasthan.

3. Chandra Bhan S/o Brij Lal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Suratgarh, Raghunathpura, District Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

4. Manohar Singh S/o Jeevraj Singh Bhati, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Janglu, Nokha, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

5. Jetha Ram S/o Hukma Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Lakhusar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

6. Subhash Chandra S/o Hansraj, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 4 Kwsm, Sansardesar, Tehsil Chatargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

7. Hari Narayan Yadav S/o Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Yadavo Ki Dhani, Bassi Jhajra, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

8. Harinarayan Verma S/o Shri Kana Ran Verma, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Balaiyo Ki Shani, Dungaree, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

9. Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Tulsi Rais, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Bhola Baba Ki Dhani, Dungaree, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan.

10. Jagdish Jat S/o Shri Shyoram Jat, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Moriya Ki Dhani, Murlipura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

11. Kanaram Kumawat, Kanvarasa, Kumawat S/o Shri Kishna Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Khandel, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

12. Kalyan Mal Kumawat S/o Shri Kishna Ram, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Bag Ki Dhani, Tyod, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan.

13. Kishor Singh Jakhar S/o Shri Bhura Ram Jakhar, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Sankhla Ka Bas, Kalakh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

14. Keshav Kant S/o Shri Muna Ram, Aged About 52 Years,

(2 of 6) [CW-19014/2022]

R/o Aichro Ki Dhani, Bhainslana, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

15. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Govind Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Chapari, Govindrapura, Korsina, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

16. Madan Lal Jat S/o Shri Rodu Ram Jat, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ranwo Ki Dhani, Devia, Boraj, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

17. Mohan Lal Yadav S/o Shri Bheru Ram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Kana Bagvadiya Ki Dhani, Loharwara, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

18. Mangai Chand S/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 49 Years, R/ o Gudha Bersel, Gurha Barsal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

19. Nanu Ram Kintwa S/o Shri Birda Ram Kantwa, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Kantwa Ki Dhani, Himoda, Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan..

20. Nanu Ram Chula S/o Shri Ramdev Chula, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Chula Ki Dhani, Jaitapura, Khandel, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

21. Nar Singh Lal Yadav S/o Shri Ramu Ram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Pachawaniya Ki Shani, Bagavas, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

22. Om Prakash Yadav S/o Shri Kana Ram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Yadavo Ki Dhani, Bamniyawas, Bobas, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

23. Prabhu Dayal Singla S/o Shri Rugha Ram Singla, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Amipura Single Ki Dhani, Khandel, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

24. Pokhar Mal Jat S/o Shri Manguram Jat, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Pachkodiya, Jodner, Phulner, District Moondoli, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

25. Prakash Chand S/o Shri Rambakhish Jat, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Dudhavalo Ki Dhani, Bhikhawas, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

26. Ramdhan Gurjar S/o Shri Rupa Ram Gurjar, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 27, Gurjaro Ka Mohalla, Gurjaro Ka Mohalla, Sirohi Khurd, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

27. Ramdayal Kumawat S/o Shri Kana Ram Morooda, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Shri Rampura, Srirampura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

(3 of 6) [CW-19014/2022]

28. Ramswaroop S/o Shri Shrawan Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Maliyo Ki Dhani, Bhawasa, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

29. Ramswaroop Das Swami S/o Shri Prabhat Das Swami, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Shanty Chowk, Bobas, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

30. Rajkumar Verma S/o Shri Sohan Lal Verma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Gudha Kumawatan, Guzha Kumawatan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Bobas, District

31. Raju Ram Gurjar S/o Shri Jiwan Ram Gurjar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Gurjaro Ka Bas, Ramjipura Khurd, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

32. Ramkuwar Verma S/o Shri Jagnath Ram Verma, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Padiyanron Ki Dhani, Kheri Milak, Khedi Milk, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

33. Rameshwar Lal Sharma S/o Shri Mangi Lal Sharma, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Rudmal Bagada Ki Dhani Villagenandari, Rewai, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

34. Rameshwar Lal Jat S/o Shri Budharam Ram Jitarwal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Jitarwalo Ki Dhani, Bhadwa, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

35. Rupchand Kumawat S/o Shri Narayan Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Baberwalo Ki Dhani, Jobner, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

36. Rakesh Chand Choudhary S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Khokhar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ganeshpura, Post Kalakh, Jobner, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

37. Roduram Choudhary S/o Shri Chotu Ram Choudary, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Jat Mohalla, Shrirampura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

38. Rameshwar Bhakhar S/o Shri Ramrakh Bhakhar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Purani School Ke Pas, Bingolav, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

39. Shivnarayan Balai S/o Shri Ramnarayan Balai, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Ringi, Tehsilphulera, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan.

40. Ram Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Bhairu Ran Kumawat, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 11, Jhutha Sarodiya Ki Dhnai, Khejadawas, Jobner, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

41. Sagar Mal Choudhary S/o Shri Ramchandra, Aged About

(4 of 6) [CW-19014/2022]

60 Years, R/o Itava, Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

42. Sukh Lal S/o Shri Ramdev, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ward No. 3 Rozzi, Tehsilphulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

43. Shantilal Khatik S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal Khatik, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Khatiko Ka Mohalla, Urseva District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

44. Shyoji Ram S/o Shri Hari Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 06, Nohar Barad Wala Ka Gram, Bhasinghpura, Jobner, Post Dhani Boraj, Via Bhansinghpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

45. Suraj Mal Choudhary S/o Shri Jagdish Choudhary, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Jat Mohalla, Dedu, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Sanwali, District

46. Sunda Ram Jat S/o Shri Lala Ram Jat, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Post Kazipura, Village Norangpura, Kazipura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

47. Sohan Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Ghisa Lal Kumawat, Aged About 63 Years, R/o 58, Bherji 19 Ki Dhani, Machher Khani District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

48. Shishpal S/o Shri Mana Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Nitharwalo Ki Dhani, Gadri, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

49. Shree Lal Jat S/o Shri Ramkaran Jat, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Jato Ka Mohalla, Gav Pavaliya, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

50. Shiv Karan S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Sholwata, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

51. Vishram S/o Shri Heera Lal Jat, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Jato Ki Mohalla, Patudi, Dantri, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

52. Birju Singh S/o Shri Bhawani Dan, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Buddhji Ka Bas, Bobas, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----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,

(5 of 6) [CW-19014/2022]

Agriculture Extension, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

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

5. The Project Director, Atma, Office Of Deputy Director, Agriculture Extension, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

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

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

8. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner, District Bikaner, 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, 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

(6 of 6) [CW-19014/2022]

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.