Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naresh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:36637) on 3 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:36637]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14335/2024
Naresh Kumar S/o Mani Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village
Dhandhal Lekhu, Tehsil Rajgarh, Churu, At Present Posted At Phc
Kalri As Lab Assistant.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Health
Services, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Churu.
4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ratangarh, Churu.
5. Block Chief Medical And Health Officer, Rajgarh, Churu.
6. Medical Officer Incharge, Phc Kalri, District Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S.Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
03/09/2024
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
reliefs as indicated in the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the
petitioner's 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:-
[2024:RJ-JD:36637] (2 of 3) [CW-14335/2024]
"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
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".
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:36637] (3 of 3) [CW-14335/2024]
4. The order has been passed 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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
79-AnilSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
