Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dilip Kumar Choubisa vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 January, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17982/2021
Dilip Kumar Choubisa S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged about 32
Years, Resident of Murlidhar Street, Bhinder Tehsil Bhinder,
District Udaipur. Presently working as Cook at Government
Ambedkar Hostel, Bhinder, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary,
Department of Social Justice and Empowerment,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Hostel Superintendent, Government Ambedkar Hostel,
Bhinder, District Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Dutt.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
04/01/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
reliefs as indicated in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that his
representation may be considered by the respondents in the 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
[(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 149]. The relevant portion of the
judgment reads as under:
(2 of 3) [CW-17982/2021]
"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 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
(3 of 3) [CW-17982/2021]
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."
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.
The stay petition is also disposed of.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
75-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
