Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gaji Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 2 January, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14331/2021

1. Gaji Ram S/o Shri Dadoo Ram, Aged About 36 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Sihadar, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer.

2. Shahnaz W/o Sh. Yashin Khan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Dhabba Para, Jaisalmer.

3. Smt. Reva W/o Sh. Chanda Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village And Post Mandai, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer.

4. Deepa Ram S/o Sh. Mulka Ram Meghwal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Kanod, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer.

5. Ram Lal S/o Sh. Raja Ram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village And Post Vandhar, Tehsil Raniwara, Dist. Jalore.

6. Smt. Kanta W/o Ved Prakash, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 375, Gali No. 4 Shiv Nagar, 3-E Chhoti, Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner-

Cum-Director And Secretary To Government, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Assistant Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Jaisalmer.

3. The Assistant Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Jaisalmer.

4. The District Probation And Social Welfare Officer, Department Of Social Welfare, Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

02/01/2023

1. Mr. Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks

permission to withdraw the present petition qua the petitioners

Nos. 3, 5 and 6 with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition.

(2 of 4) [CW-14331/2021]

2. With the liberty as prayed, the petition is dismissed qua

petitioners Nos. 3, 5 and 6.

3. Petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 are aggrieved with the orders

dated 15.09.2021(Annexure-2); 10.09.2021(Annexure-3) and

31.12.2020(Annexure-5); respectively passed by the respondents,

whereby, the representation(s) made by the petitioner(s) have

been rejected.

4. The petitioner No. 1, 2 and 4 had approached this Court on

earlier occasion by filing writ petitions (being S.B. Civil Writ

Petition Nos.7793/2020, 13032/2020 and 5761/2020,

respectively), seeking directions to the respondents to make

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

scales.

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

counsel for the petitioners 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 petitions vide orders dated

11.09.2020, 21.01.2021 and 06.08.2020, directing the petitioners

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).

6. The representation filed by the petitioners came to be

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

Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment Department passed

the order of following nature:-

(3 of 4) [CW-14331/2021]

"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 lgk;d funs"kd] lkU;kvfo] tSlyesj ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd Jherh "kgukt dks fnukad 01-09-2016 dks 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 jgh gS rFkk lgk;d funs"kd] lkU;kvfo] tSlyesj }kjk dk;Z larks"ktud crk;k x;k gSA budh tUe frfFk 01-01-1981 gksus ds vk/kkj ij vk;q 41 o"kZ ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk pkSFkh d{kk mRrh.kZ gSA Jherh "kkgukt] 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 prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in dh U;wure "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ,oa 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[krh 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 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 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)

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners' case are also identical.

8. 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.

                                                                             (4 of 4)                [CW-14331/2021]



                                                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.

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."

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

the present writ petition is also allowed.

10. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of

minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner No.1 - Gaji Ram,

Petitioner No.2 - Shahnaz and petitioner No.4 - Deepa Ram from

the date their writ petitions filed in earlier round of litigation came

to be decided by this Court.