Javed Hussain vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2787 Raj

[2023/RJJD/009179]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4408/2023

1. Javed Hussain S/o Mohd. Bashir, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Tilak Nagar Jaipur Road Bikaner Rajasthan.

2. Surendra Singh S/o Jeevan Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o F.c.i. Godam Road Indra Colony Bikaner Rajasthan.

3. Balkishan Upadhayay S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Gotam Villa Rani Bazar Bikaner Rajasthan.

4. Rajesh Shahi S/o Prem Sagar, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 6/64 Mukta Prasad Nagar Bikaner Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary (Government Of Rajasthan) Medical And Health Services, Jaipur

2. Director, Medical And Health Services Government Of Rajasthan Jaipur

3. Principal And Controller, Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner.

4. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Medical And Health Services, Bikaner.

5. The Superintendent Associated Group Of Hospitals, P.b.m.

Hospital Bikaner.

6. The General Manager, Bikaner Sahkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd. 'vijay Sahkar Bhawan' Sri Ganganagar Road Bikaner.

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Sharwan Singh Nimban
For Respondent(s)              :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

06/04/2023

[2023/RJJD/009179] (2 of 3) [CW-4408/2023]

1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs:

"A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents to accord pay and pay scale of Pharmacist prescribed in Rajasthan Revised Pay Scale rules from the date of their joining on the post and pay all consequential benefits.

B. by an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay minimum wages payable to an industrial workers from the date of their initial joining till pay and pay scale prescribed for Pharmacist is sanctioned to them".

2. 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 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' Page 101 101 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,

[2023/RJJD/009179] (3 of 3) [CW-4408/2023]

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 payscale (- at the lowest grade, in the regular payscale), 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 precedent law as extracted

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

today.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 173-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)