Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laluram Jat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24887) on 22 May, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:24887]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10262/2025
1. Laluram Jat S/o Amedaram Jat, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
Village Sadhuna, Panchayat Samiti Panchu, Tehsil Nokha,
District Bikaner (Raj.)
2. Pappu Nath S/o Chun Nath, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Village Sadhuna, Panchayat Samiti Panchu, Tehsil Nokha,
District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Public Health And Engineering Department
(Phed), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Secretary, Panchayat Raj And Rural Development,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner District
Bikaner Rajasthan.
4. District Collector, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Superintending Engineer, Department Of Public Health
And Engineering Department (Phed) Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
6. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Panchu,
District Bikaner (Raj.)
7. The Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat
Sadhuna, Panchayat Samiti Panchu, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
22/05/2025
1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioners seeking reliefs
as indicated in the writ petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:24887] (2 of 3) [CW-10262/2025]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that his
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:
"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,
[2025:RJ-JD:24887] (3 of 3) [CW-10262/2025]
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 payscale 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
petitioners 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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
10-/Arun P/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
