Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shanti Lal Vaishnav vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40074) on 26 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:40074]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14392/2024
Shanti Lal Vaishnav S/o Shri Uday Lal Vaishnav, Aged About 49
Years, R/o Beragi Mohalla, Salawatiya, Bhilwara. Presently
working as Class IV Employee in Panchayat Samiti Bijoliya,
Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
3. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pulkeshwar Rajpurohit for
Mr. Mahipaal Rajpurohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Patel, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
26/09/2024
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
reliefs as indicated in the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will be
satisfied if liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh
representation for redressal of his grievance and the respondents
may be directed to consider the same 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:40074] (2 of 3) [CW-14392/2024]
"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. Considering the limited prayer made by learned counsel for
the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty
[2024:RJ-JD:40074] (3 of 3) [CW-14392/2024]
to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent
authorities for redressal of his grievances.
4. In the event of filing such representation by the petitioner,
the respondents are directed to consider the same in terms of the
aforesaid judgment. The needful be done within a period of 60
days from date of filing of such representation.
4. The stay application is also disposed of.
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
28-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
