Ashok Kumar Khatik vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1079 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1079 Raj
Judgement Date : 27 January, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ashok Kumar Khatik vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 January, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023/RJJD/002655]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1216/2023

Ashok Kumar Khatik S/o Shir Prithu Khatik, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Khatik (Sc), R/o 4, Khatik Mohalla, Tehsil Amdala, District Bhilwara. Presently Working As Chowkidaar In Government Ambedkar Boyas Hostel Koshital, Tehsil Shara, District Bhilwara.

----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, Bhilwara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahipal Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K.Gaur, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

27/01/2023

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 28.07.2022 (Annex.P/4), passed by the

respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner

has been rejected.

2. The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion

by filing writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.4145/2022), seeking directions to the respondents to make

payment of wages to him at the minimum of the applicable pay

scales.

[2023/RJJD/002655] (2 of 4) [CW-1216/2023]

3. This Court, on noticing the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised was similar to

Anokh Bai vs.State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.Civil Writ Petition

No.372/2013 & other connected matters decided on 25.04.2017 at

Jaipur Bench, disposed of the petition vide order dated

17.03.2021, directing the petitioner to file representation along

with copy of the judgment in the case of Anokh Bai (supra) and

the respondents were directed to decide the representation within

a period of eight weeks in accordance with law and the law laid

down in the case of Anokh Bai (supra).

4. The representation filed by the petitioner came to be decided

by the impugned order, whereby, the Director and Joint Secretary,

Social Justice and Empowerment Department passed the following

order :-

"ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ ds izdj.k eas ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 25-04-2017 es prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure fn, tkus gsrq in dh vko';d ;ksX;rk ds lac/k esa bl izdkj mYys[k gS & To become entitle for minimum of the pay scale, one has to show required qualification and working against the sanctioned post.

prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ikapoha mRrh.kZ gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vH;kosnu dk mi funs'kd] lkU;kvfo] tks/kiqj ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd Jh gLrk jke dks ekg tqykbZ] 2016 ls IysleasV ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls dk;Z ij j[kk x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij ;kph yxHkx 05 o"kZ ls dk;Z dj jgk gS rFkk Nk=kokl v/kh{kd] jktdh; vEcsMdj Nk=kokl] e.Mksj] ftyk tks/kiqj }kjk dk;Z larks"ktud crk;k x;k gSA budh tUe frfFk 09-01-1994 gksus ds vk/kkj ij vk;q 27 o"kZ ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk Lukrd gSA Jh gLrk jke vuks[k ckbZ ,oa iatkc LVsV o vU; cuke txthr flag o vU; ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj 10 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ ugha djus ds dkj.k prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru ds fy, ik=rk ugha j[krk gS A ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk foHkkxh; Nk=koklksa esa dk;Zjr va'kdkyhu jlksb;[email protected] ds laca/k esa fuf.kZr izdj.kksa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq foHkkx }kjk xfBr foHkkxh;

lfefr }kjk Hkh ;kph dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ izdj.k esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru 17][email protected]& :i;s izfrekg ugha fn;s tkus dh vuq'ka"kk dh x;h gSA

[2023/RJJD/002655] (3 of 4) [CW-1216/2023]

vr% ;kfpdkdrkZ dk vH;kosnu mDrkuqlkj vuks[k ckbZ izdj.k la[;k [email protected] ds fu.kZ; fnukad 25-04-2017 ds vuq:i ugha ik;k tkrk gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh ikyuk esa izLrqr vH;kosnu dk fuLrkj.k mijksDrkuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA"

(emphasis supplied)

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that identical

writ petitions came to be disposed of by the coordinate Bench of

this Court vide its order dated 01.12.2022, passed in Kanhaiya Lal

Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3595/2022)

and petitioner's case is also identical.

6. In the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), this Court has held

thus:-

"A specific determination was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the said requirement was a result of intermingled legal position determined by the Supreme Court on the subject of regularization of employees while the issue before the Court was pay parity and that the determination was in teeth of the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India : (1988) 1 SCC 122.

In view of the above categorical pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aspect of period for which the petitioners are required to work for the purpose of getting minimum of the pay scale, the determination made by the respondents requiring the petitioners to have worked for a minimum of 10 years cannot be sustained.

In all the cases, on other aspects i.e. the minimum qualification and satisfactory working of the petitioners, the authority has held in favour of the petitioners.

[2023/RJJD/002655] (4 of 4) [CW-1216/2023]

In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 16.11.2021 (Annex.P/2), denying minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner only on account of him having worked for less than 10 years is quashed and set aside.

The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner from the date the writ petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by this Court, as indicated hereinbefore.

Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order."

7. Following the judgment in the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra),

the present writ petition is also allowed.

8. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of

minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner from the date his writ

petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by

this Court.