Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ghanshyam vs The State Of Rajasthan on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15710/2021
Ghanshyam S/o Man Das, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste
Kamad, Resident Of Barlajsar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu
Presently Working As Cook In Government Ambedkar Hostel
Sujangarh, District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Social
Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Social Justice And Empowerment
Department, Directorate Of Social Welfare, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Hostel Superintendent, Rajkiya Ambedkar
Chhatrawas Sujangarh, District Churu.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15711/2021
Lichhma Devi W/o Shri Shera Ram, Aged About 38 Years, By
Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Benatha Omji, Tehsil Bidasar,
District Churu, Presently Working As Cook, Rajkiya Ambedkar
Chhatrawas Chhapar, District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Social
Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Social Justice And Empowerment
Department, Directorate Of Social Welfare, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Hostel Superintendent, Rajkiya Ambedkar
Chhatrawas Chhapar, District Churu.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15787/2021
Satveer S/o Shri Ram Chander, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste
Meghwal, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Dhaniyasha, Tehsil
(2 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]
Taranagar, District Churu Presently Working On The Post Of
Chowkidar, Government Ambedkar Hostel, Taranagar District
Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Social
Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Social Justice And Empowerment
Department, Directorate Of Social Welfare, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Hostel Superintendent, Dr. B.r. Ambedkar
Government Hostel, Taranagar, District Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Dutt.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Gaur, AAG.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
23/01/2023
In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15710/2021 :-
I.A. No.1/2023:
Considering that the matters stands covered by the decision
of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.12.2022, rendered
in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.3595/2022), the application seeking preponement of
the date of listing is allowed. The matter is taken up today itself.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15710/2021:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against the order dated 8.10.2021 (Annex.4), passed by the
respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner
has been rejected.
(3 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]
The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion
by filing writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.10102/2021), seeking directions to the respondents to make
payment of wages to him at the minimum of the applicable pay
scales.
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
05.08.2021, 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).
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 के पद के लिए U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ikapoha d{kk
mRrh.kZ gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ की और से प्रस्तत
ु vH;kosnu dk lgk;d funs'kd]
lkU;kvfo] pw: ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd Jh
घनश्याम dks fnukad 01-04-2014 dks IysleasV ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls dk;Z ij j[kk
x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij ;kph yxHkx 07 o"kZ ls dk;Z dj jgk gS rFkk
Nk=kokl v/kh{kd] jktdh; vEcsMdj Nk=kokl] सज
ु ानगढ़] ftyk pw: }kjk इनका
(4 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]
dk;Z larks"ktud crk;k x;k gSA rFkk budh tUe frfFk 25-07-1987 gksus ds
vk/kkj ij vk;q 34 o"kZ ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ततृ ीय d{kk mRrh.kZ gSA
Jh घनश्याम] 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 gSA 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
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)
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional
Advocate General 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.
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.
(5 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]
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 his Court, as indicated
hereinbefore.
Needful be done by the respondents within a
period of four weeks from the date of this order."
Following the judgment in the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra),
the present writ petition is also allowed.
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.
Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four
weeks from the date of this order.
Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15711/2021 :-
(6 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]
I.A. No.1/2023:
Considering that the matters stands covered by the decision
of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.12.2022, rendered
in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.3595/2022), the application seeking preponement of
the date of listing is allowed. The matter is taken up today itself.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15711/2021:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against the order dated 10.09.2021 (Annex.4), passed by the
respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner
has been rejected.
The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion
by filing writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9845/2021),
seeking directions to the respondents to make payment of wages
to him at the minimum of the applicable pay scales.
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
05.08.2021, 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).
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 :-
(7 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]
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 जिलाधिकारी] pw: ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj
ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd श्रीमती लिछमा दे वी dks fnukad 01-07-2013 dks
IysleasV ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls dk;Z ij j[kk x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij ;kph
yxHkx 08 o"kZ ls निरं तर dk;Z dj jgh gS rFkk Nk=kokl v/kh{kd] jktdh;
vEcsMdj Nk=kokl] छापर] ftyk pw: }kjk dk;Z larks"ktud crk;k x;k gSA
budh tUe frfFk 01-01-1983 gksus ds vk/kkj ij vk;q 39 o"kZ ,oa
'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk साक्षर gSA
श्रीमती लिछमा दे वी] 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 gSA 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
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)
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional
Advocate General 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.
(8 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]
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.
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 his Court, as indicated
hereinbefore.
Needful be done by the respondents within a
period of four weeks from the date of this order."
Following the judgment in the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra),
the present writ petition is also allowed.
(9 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]
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.
Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four
weeks from the date of this order.
Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15787/2021 :-
I.A. No.1/2023:
Considering that the matters stands covered by the decision
of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.12.2022, rendered
in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.3595/2022), the application seeking preponement of
the date of listing is allowed. The matter is taken up today itself.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15787/2021:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against the order dated 10.09.2021 (Annex.6), passed by the
respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner
has been rejected.
The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion
by filing writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6789/2021),
seeking directions to the respondents to make payment of wages
to him at the minimum of the applicable pay scales.
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
01.07.2021, directing the petitioner to file representation along
(10 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]
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).
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 lgk;d funs'kd] lkU;kvfo] pw: ls izkIr
fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd Jh सतवीर dks fnukad 01-08-
2013 dks IysleasV ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls dk;Z ij j[kk x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj
ij ;kph yxHkx 08 o"kZ ls dk;Z dj jgk gS rFkk Nk=kokl v/kh{kd] jktdh;
vEcsMdj Nk=kokl] तारानगर] ftyk pw: }kjk dk;Z larks"ktud crk;k x;k gSA
budh tUe frfFk 16-05-1995 gksus ds vk/kkj ij vk;q 26 o"kZ ,oa
'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk स्नातक gSA
Jh सतवीर] 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 gSA 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
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
(11 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]
(emphasis supplied)
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional
Advocate General 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.
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.
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
(12 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]
date the writ petition filed in earlier round of litigation
came to be decided by his Court, as indicated
hereinbefore.
Needful be done by the respondents within a
period of four weeks from the date of this order."
Following the judgment in the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra),
the present writ petition is also allowed.
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.
Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four
weeks from the date of this order.
Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
96-97-98-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
