Rajasthan High Court
Omprakash Barsiwal S/O Ram Lal Barsiwal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 May, 2024
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2024:RJ-JP:20660]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21266/2018
Omprakash Barsiwal S/o Ram Lal Barsiwal, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o 21, Shastri Nagar, Salasar Road, Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary To
Government, Department Of Education (Secondary),
Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
To Government, Department Of Personnel, Government
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Taylor
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
02/05/2024
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with
a following prayer:-
"i) That the respondents may be directed to
make fixation of the petitioner's pay in the pay
scale pertaining to the promotion post of the
Head Master from the date he joined as Head
Master under the order dated 25.09.2009
(Annexure-1) giving him the benefit accruable to
a promotion post; or
ii) It may be ordered that the petitioner be
given the consequent arrears of difference of pay
for the period, which is from the date of joining
by 'Patey-vetan' order to date of regular
promotion on the post of Head Master, for which
he worked as Head Master post. Further, interest
thereon at the rate of 18% per annum may also
be ordered to be given."
[2024:RJ-JP:20660] (2 of 4) [CW-21266/2018]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
raised in the present petition has been put to rest in the case of
Vijay Kumar Damor & Ors. Vs. The Principal Secretary &
Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6547/2011 decided on
19.09.2012.
3. Relying upon the judgment passed in the case of Vijay
Kumar Damor (supra), counsel for the petitioner submits that
the State-respondents have allowed the benefit to the similarly
situated persons.
4. The operative portion of the order passed in the case of
Vijay Kumar Samor & Ors. (supra) is quoted hereunder:-
"It is submitted that posting of the
petitioners as Lecturer was made as an
administrative arrangement on temporary basis
in their "pantey vetan". The term "pantey vetan"
as explained by learned Government Advocate is
the pay-scale in which the petitioners were
already running at the time of their posting as
Lecturer. The fact mentioned in the reply that the
petitioners are working as Lecturer is sufficient to
establish that adequate number of vacancies
pertaining to the post of Lecturer were available
and the respondents utilized services of the
petitioners thereon without making promotions in
accordance with the Rules. When the
respondents are utilizing services of the
petitioners on the post of Lecturer that too from
last about a decade, then there is no just reason
available to deny pay-scale pertaining to the post
concern. The posting of the petitioners on higher
post, as a matter of fact, is nothing but a
promotion looking to the administrative exigency,
though that is termed as "administration
arrangement in pantey vetan". Once the services
of the petitioners are utilized on higher post, they
became entitled for fixation of their pay in the
pay-scale attached with that post. They are
discharging the same duties as discharged by
other lecturers employed byway of direct
[2024:RJ-JP:20660] (3 of 4) [CW-21266/2018]
recruitment or byway of promotion, as such the
respondents are required to maintain a parity in
granting pay to the persons discharging similar
duties. The case of the petitioners is not of
intermittent officiation on higher post while
discharging their normal duties but of discharging
duties of higher post for all purposes excluding
the duties relating to the substantive post held
by them. The non grant of the pay-scale
applicable to the post of Lecturer to the
petitioners despite utilizing their services on that
post is not permissible in view of the doctrine of
"equal pay for equal work" enshrined under
Article 39(d) read with Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed.
The respondents are directed to make fixation of
the petitioners' pay in the pay-scale pertaining to
the post of Lecturer from the date they were
posted on the post aforesaid under the
orders(Annex.1) collectively. The necessary
fixation in pursuant to the directions aforesaid is
required to be made within a period of three
months from today. The petitioners shall also be
entitled for arrears of wages.
No order to cost."
5. Taking into consideration the observations made in the case
of Vijay Kumar Damor & Ors (supra), the present writ petition
is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed
representation to the competent respondent authority in regard to
claim as averred in the present petition alongwith copy of this
order and also a copy of order passed in the case of Vijay Kumar
Damor & Ors. (supra).
6. On receiving of the representation from the petitioner, the
respondents shall consider and pass a reasoned and speaking
order on the representation of the petitioner.
7. It goes without saying that after verifying the facts as stated
in the representation submitted by the petitioner if, case of the
[2024:RJ-JP:20660] (4 of 4) [CW-21266/2018]
petitioner is found to be similar to that of the case as mentioned
above, the respondents are expected to grant same relief to the
petitioner also in accordance with law. The respondents shall pass
order on the representation of the petitioner within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of representation.
8. Since the main petition has been disposed of, the pending
application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
Ashish Kumar /29
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
