Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Manohar Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 January, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 547/2022

1. Manohar Lal S/o Shri Banshi Lal, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Retada Post Patiya, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

2. Suresh Chandra Meena S/o Shri Kuri Lal Meena, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Village Bhojat Fala Ghata Post Shaktawato Ka Guda, Tehsil Semari, District Udaipur (Raj.).

3. Magan Lal S/o Shri Virendraji, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Bhagorpada Post Patiya, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

4. Nitesh Damor S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Samrun Post Sulai, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

5. Vimala Devi W/o Shri Magan Lal, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Bhagorpada Post Patiya, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

6. Subhash Kumar S/o Shri Virendraji Bhagora, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Bhagorpada Post Patiya, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

7. Amrit Lal Kharadi S/o Shri Ditaji, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Village Balicha Nalfala Post Jayara, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

8. Bhuri Devi W/o Shri Kanti Lal, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Bhagorpada Post Patiya, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

9. Savita D/o Shri Kava, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Bhagorpada Post Patiya, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

10. Sava S/o Shri Devtaji Khokhariya, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bavalwada, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

11. Rekha Devi W/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bavalwada, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

12. Mani Devi W/o Shri Vel Singh, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Village Ranchha Post Bavalwada, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

(2 of 5) [CW-547/2022]

13. Mani Devi W/o Shri Lal Sing, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bavalwada, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

14. Jija W/o Shri Tejraj, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village Kakan Post Sagwada Tehsil Rishabhdev, District Udaipur (Raj.).

15. Hudali Devi D/o Shri Jiva, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village Kakan Post Sagwada Tehsil Rishabhdev, District Udaipur (Raj.).

16. Laxmi Devi D/o Shri Mohan, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Robiya Post Sundra, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

17. Jasoda Devi W/o Shri Lal Sing, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Chhani, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

18. Kanchan Devi W/o Shri Sohan Singh, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Chhani, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

19. Anita Devi D/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kanbai, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

20. Fata S/o Shri Dharma Kharadi, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kheda Ghati, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

21. Jayanti Lal S/o Shri Ramji, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Balicha, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

22. Lalit S/o Shri Jiva Damor, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Balicha, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

23. Somali Devi W/o Shri Suresh, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Khokhadara, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

24. Shanta Devi W/o Shri Ramesh Chandra, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Khokhadara, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

25. Badami Devi W/o Shri Hira Lal, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Padiyakad Kherwada Khalsa, Tehsil Kherwada, District Udaipur (Raj.).

26. Mahendra S/o Shri Narayan, Aged About 28 Years,

(3 of 5) [CW-547/2022]

Resident Of Village And Post Kojhawada, Tehsil Rishabhdev, District Udaipur (Raj.).

27. Kamla Devi W/o Shri Babu, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village Kakan Post Sagwada, Tehsil Rishabhdev, District Udaipur (Raj.).

28. Dashrath Kumar Meena S/o Shri Shankarji, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Chandora, Tehsil Semari, District Udaipur (Raj.).

29. Shankar Lal S/o Shri Nathuji Meena, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Bhojat Fala Ghata Post Shaktawato Ka Guda, Tehsil Semari, District Udaipur (Raj.).

30. Lalu S/o Shri Nathu, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Bhojat Fala Ghata Post Shaktawato Ka Guda, Tehsil Semari, District Udaipur (Raj.).

31. Kamlesh Vihat S/o Shri Gomaji, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bokhala Pal, Tehsil Bichhiwada, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

32. Lalita Devi W/o Shri Kuri Chand Meena, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kojhawada, Tehsil Rishabhdev, District Udaipur (Raj.).

33. Kalu S/o Shri Amra, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Rajol, Post Kalyanpur, Tehsil Kherwara, District Udaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Social Justice And Empowered, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Divisional Commissioner, T.a.d., District Udiapur (Raj.).

3. The District Collector, District Udaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Varda Ram Choudhary (on VC)

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

(4 of 5) [CW-547/2022]

14/01/2022

In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its

highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to

refrain from coming to the Courts.

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the reliefs as mentioned

in the writ petition.

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 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' Page 101101 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

(5 of 5) [CW-547/2022]

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 been titled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular payscale), 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

petitioners in terms of aforesaid precedent law as extracted

hereinabove. The needful be done within a period of 60 days from

today.