Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohammed Yasin vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:42032) on 4 December, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:42032] (1 of 3) [CW-18595/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18595/2023
Mohammed Yasin S/o Abdul Kayyum, Aged About 35 Years, B/c
Muslim, R/o Near Bader Minaro Ki Masjid, Sojat City, District Pali.
Presently Working As Computer With Operator (Man With
Machine) In Sub-Treasury Office, Sojat, District Pali (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Social
Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, G-3/1,
Ambedkar Bhawan, Rajmahal Residency Area, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Treasuries And Accounts,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Treasury Officer, Pali.
5. The Sub-Treasury Officer, Sojat, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pulkeshwar Rajpurohit for
Mr. Mahipal Rajpurohit.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
04/12/2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that petitioner's
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
[2023:RJ-JD:42032] (2 of 3) [CW-18595/2023]
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
[2023:RJ-JD:42032] (3 of 3) [CW-18595/2023]
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 pay scale), extended to regular
employees, holding the same post."
2. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with
direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the
petitioner in terms of aforesaid precedent law as extracted
hereinabove. The needful be done within a period of 60 days from
the date of receiving the certified copy of this order.
3. 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.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
36-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
