Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Soram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 November, 2023
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:39314] (1 of 3) [CW-1335/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1335/2022
Smt. Soram W/o Shri Murali Manohar Sharma, Aged About 51
Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Top Khane Ke Andar, Jhalawar. Presently
Working As Cook In Govt. Ambedkar Boys Hostel Top Khana,
Jhalawar.
----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,
Jhalawar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahipal Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Salman Agha on behalf of
Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
16/11/2023
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition is covered by the
order dated 01.12.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.3595/2022 (Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.).
The operative paras of the order dated 01.12.2022 is
reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
"A specific determination was made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court holding that the said requirement was a
[2023:RJ-JD:39314] (2 of 3) [CW-1335/2022]
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 petitions filed by the petitioners are
allowed. The orders dated 10/9/2021 (Annex.P/2 in CW No.
3595/22), 10/9/2021 (Annex.P/2 in CW No.17734/21),
4/2/2022 (Annex.P/3 in CW No. 4201/2022), 4/2/2022
(Annex.P/2 in CW No. 4244/2022), 10/9/2021 (Annex.3 in
CW No.4822/2022) and 16/11/2021 (Annex.P./2 in CW
No.1304/2022) denying minimum of the pay scale to the
petitioners only on account of their having worked for less
than 10 years are quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of
minimum of the pay scale to the petitioners from the date
their writ petitions 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"
In view of aforesaid, the present writ petition filed by the
petitioner is allowed. The order dated 08.10.2021 (Annexure-P/2)
denying minimum of the pay-scale to the petitioner on account of
her not having completed the services of ten years, is quashed
and set aside.
The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of
minimum pay-scale to the petitioner from the date of her filing the
earlier writ petition.
[2023:RJ-JD:39314] (3 of 3) [CW-1335/2022]
Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four
weeks from the date of this order.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
425-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
