Kunal Vyas vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 8513 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6046/2022

1. Kunal Vyas S/o Shri Amrish Vyas, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Acharyon Ka Chowk, Pant Stand Ke Samne Wali Gali, Bikaner.

2. Amit Choudhary S/o Shri Radha Kishan Choudhary, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 37, Jail Road, Vaishali Nagar, Tonk

3. Ratiram Choudhary S/o Shri Sitaram Choudhary, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Harbhagatpura, Police Indikoya, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk

4. Narayan Saini S/o Shri Gopal Mali, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Chandsen, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk

5. Virendra Singh S/o Shri Soran Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Jageerpura Kala, Post Basi Nawab, District Dholpur

6. Vijay Pal S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 15, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar

7. Daulatram Godara S/o Shri Sohanlal, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Manafarsar, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner

8. Nisar Khan S/o Shri Jamadar Khan, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Awar, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur

9. Sanjay S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of V.p.o. Hamirwas, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

10. Pooran Singh S/o Shri Kishan Singh, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Bharatpur Road, Opposite Goshala, Kumher, District Bharatpur

11. Islam Khan S/o Shri Chitariya, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Awar, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur

12. Santosh Gurjar S/o Shri Jawahar Singh Gurjar, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Peeplakheda, Post Peeplakheda, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa

13. Vinod Jhalawat S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Jhalawat, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Kharsan, Post Bhatewar, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur

14. Smt. Gayatri Menaria W/o Shri Chagan Menaria, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Kharsan, Post Bhatewar, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur

15. Suresh Kumar Ahir S/o Shri Goverdhan Ahir, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village Khakharwas, Post Bhatewar, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur

16. Prakash Chandra Dangi S/o Shri Rodi Lal Dangi, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Rupawali, Post Dhamania, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur

17. Balwant Singh Jhala S/o Shri Bhagwat Singh Jhala, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Jhalo Ki Bhagal, Post

(2 of 4) [CW-6046/2022]

Rundera, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur

18. Logar Lal Dangi S/o Shri Nawlla Dangi, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Ranchorpura, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur

19. Heera Lal Ahir S/o Shri Kishan Lal Ahir, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village Khokharwas, Post Bhatewar, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur

20. Naveen Kumar Ahir S/o Shri Kishan Lal Ahir, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Khokharwas, Post Bhatewar, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal Sciences, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar

3. Finance Controller, Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal Sciences, Bikaner

4. Dean, College Of Veterinary And Animal Science, Navania, Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur

5. Incharge, Pashu Vigyan Kendra, Tonk

6. Incharge, Pashu Vigyan Kendra, Dholpur

7. Incharge, Pashu Vigyan Kendra, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar

8. Incharge, Pashu Vigyan Kendra, Loonkaransar, District Bikaner

9. Incharge, Pashu Vigyan Kendra, Kumher, District Bharatpur

10. Incharge, Pashu Vigyan Kendra, Ratangarh, District Churu

11. Incharge, Pashu Vigyan Kendra, Sirohi

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Vyas.

For Respondent(s)         :


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                       Order
01/07/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his relief in

relation to the grant of minimum of the regular pay-scale to the

petitioners.

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

(3 of 4) [CW-6046/2022]

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' 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."

Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with

direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the

(4 of 4) [CW-6046/2022]

petitioners in terms of aforesaid judgment. The needful be done

within a period of 60 days from today.

The stay application is also disposed of.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 4-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)