Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Saroj Meghwal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/002028]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5314/2021
Saroj Meghwal W/o Shri Jawari Ram D/o Shri Deena Ram, Aged
About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Khuri Kalan Tehsil Degana
District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Bhawna Jangid, Dy. GC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
24/01/2023
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeks
reliefs as indicated in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the
representation of the petitioner 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
(Downloaded on 27/01/2023 at 11:38:37 PM)
[2023/RJJD/002028] (2 of 3) [CW-5314/2021]
casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole
fact or 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 101101 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 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 been titled to draw wages at the minimum of
the pay-scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular
payscale), extended to regular employees, holding the
same post."
Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with
direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the
(Downloaded on 27/01/2023 at 11:38:37 PM)
[2023/RJJD/002028] (3 of 3) [CW-5314/2021]
petitioner in terms of aforesaid precedent law as extracted
hereinabove. The needful be done within a period of 60 days from
today.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
65-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
