Vikram Meghwal vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3720 Raj

[2023/RJJD/012426]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5782/2023

Vikram Meghwal S/o Shri Basanti Lal Meghwal, Aged About 24 Years, B/c Meghwal (Sc), R/o Deopura, District Kota. Presently Working As Chowkidaar In Govt. Ambedkar Boys Hostel, Digod, District Kota.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Social Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Jaipur.

3. The Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Kota.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahipal Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

27/04/2023

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking reliefs

as indicated in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that representations

filed by the petitioner 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,

[2023/RJJD/012426] (2 of 3) [CW-5782/2023]

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, in so far 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 setof 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 42hereinabove. 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

[2023/RJJD/012426] (3 of 3) [CW-5782/2023]

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 application is also disposed of.

The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petitions, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner

would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 171-DArora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)