Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Munni Kumari Goswami vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 May, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/014072]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1949/2019
Munni Kumari Goswami W/o Prakash Giri Goswami, Aged About
49 Years, New Colony Near Bus Stand, Jhadol, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Medical And Health Services Zone
Udaipur, Udaipur.
4. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyash Ramdev
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
08/05/2023
1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking pay
equal to regularly appointed ANM.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that her
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
[2023/RJJD/014072] (2 of 3) [CW-1949/2019]
casual basis, contractual employees and the
like), the sole factor 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'
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 be entitled to draw wages at the
minimum of the pay-scale (- at the lowest
[2023/RJJD/014072] (3 of 3) [CW-1949/2019]
grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to
regular employees, holding the same post."
3. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with
direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the
petitioner in terms of aforesaid judgment. The needful be done
within a period of 60 days from today.
4. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
122-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
