Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Haja vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 May, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/014387]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12456/2021
Haja S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal Varhat, Aged About 52 Years, B/c Bhil
(S.t.), R/o Village Bokla, District Dungarpur. Presently Working
As Cook In Govt. Savitri Bai Phule Girls Hostel Bichiwada, District
Dungarpur.
----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,
Dungarpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahipaal Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AK Gaur, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
10/05/2023
1. Though the writ petition was preferred by the petitioner with
the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay him minimum
wages, however, during the pendency of the present writ petition,
the petitioner's representation made pursuant to order dated
27.01.2021 has been decided and the petitioner's such prayer has
been turned down vide order dated 10.09.2021. In changed
circumstances, the petitioner challenges the order dated
10.09.2021 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.1454/2021),
seeking directions to the respondents to make payment of wages
to him at the minimum of the applicable pay scales.
[2023/RJJD/014387] (2 of 3) [CW-12456/2021]
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
10.03.2021, 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. 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.
5. 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
[2023/RJJD/014387] (3 of 3) [CW-12456/2021]
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."
6. Following the judgment in the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra),
the present writ petition is also allowed.
7. 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.
8. Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four
weeks from the date of this order.
9. All the interlocutory applications including the stay
application stand disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
65-pooja/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
