Deva Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6057 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26174]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7393/2023

Deva Ram S/o Shri Moola Ram, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Meghwal (Sc), R/o Meghwalo Ka Bas, Mada, District Pali. Presently Working As Data Entry Operator Under Mndy Scheme In Government Community Hospital Or Community Health Center (Chc), Sadri, District Pali.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Nodal Officer, Mndy/mnjy, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. Secretary, Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, Pali.

5. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Pali.

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Mahipal Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)              :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

18/08/2023

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs:

"The respondent authorities may kindly be directed to give provide or pay benefit of minimum of the pay scale as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. V/s Jagjit Singh & Ors. to the petitioner".

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that his

representation may be considered by the respondents in light of

[2023:RJ-JD:26174] (2 of 3) [CW-7393/2023]

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, 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

[2023:RJ-JD:26174] (3 of 3) [CW-7393/2023]

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.

4. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in

the petition, 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 214-/AnilSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)