Satyadev Teji vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11788 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11718/2022

Satyadev Teji S/o Shri Omprakash Teji, Aged About 49 Years, Near Kanta Factory, Harizen Basti, Nagaur (Raj.), Presently Working As Class Iv Employee, At Rmsc, District Drug Depot, Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Chairman, Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limited, Gandhi Block, Health Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur.

3. The Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services, Health Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

4. The District Collector, Nagaur.

5. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur.

6. The Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, Through Its Member Secretary, Office Of Cmho, Nagaur.

7. The Medical Officer Incharge, District Drug Distribution Centre, Office Of Cmho, Nagaur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Y.P. Khileree. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary for Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

21/09/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his relief in

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

petitioner.

                                          (2 of 3)                   [CW-11718/2022]



     Learned      counsel     for     the     petitioner         prayed   that   his

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' 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 of 3) [CW-11718/2022]

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 application is also disposed of.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 87-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)