Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Pal vs State And Ors (2023/Rjjd/014697) on 11 May, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/014697]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 288/2017
Mahendra Pal S/o Shri Hari Ram, Resident Of Village Nadsar,
Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Higher Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Deputy Secretary Finance Expenditure-I, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Commissioner, College Education, Dr. Radhakrishan
Shiksha Sankul, JLN Marg, Jaipur
4. The Joint Director, College Education, Dr. Radhakrishan
Shiksha Sankul, JLN Marg, Jaipur
5. The Principal, Government College, Bhopalgarh, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Shrimali
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
11/05/2023
1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking reliefs
as indicated in the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that his
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:
[2023/RJJD/014697] (2 of 3) [CW-288/2017]
"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 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 grade, in the regular pay-
scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same
post."
[2023/RJJD/014697] (3 of 3) [CW-288/2017]
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 is also disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
33-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
