Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pratap Singh Gehlot vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 15 October, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:41968]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16860/2024
Pratap Singh Gehlot S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Gehlot, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Singiyon Ka Chowk, Chimpo Ka Mohalla,
Bada Bazar, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Art And Culture, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Rajasthan State Archives, Directorate,
Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Dutt
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
15/10/2024
1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking
reliefs as indicated in the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the
representation of the petitioner may be considered by the
respondents in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh
& Ors. reported in (2017) 1 SCC 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 casual basis,
contractual employees and the like), the sole fact or that
[2024:RJ-JD:41968] (2 of 3) [CW-16860/2024]
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."
[2024:RJ-JD:41968] (3 of 3) [CW-16860/2024]
3. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with
direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the
petitioner and if the case of the petitioner falls within the purview
of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. (supra); the
same shall be decided in terms of the judgment above. The
needful be done within a period of 60 days from today.
4. The order has been passed based on the submissions
made in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine
the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in
case, the averments made therein are found to be correct, the
petitioner would be entitled to the relief.
5. The stay application is also disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.17
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
