[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Chandra Prajapt And Ors vs State And Ors (2026:Rj-Jd:6134) on 3 February, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:6134]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8035/2018
1. Prakash Chandra Prajapat Kumhar S/o Chandmal
Prajapat, Resident Of Bhavadia, Gram Panchayat
Bhavadia, Panchayat Samiti Nimbaheda, District
Chittorgarh Raj..
2. Rajesh Kumar Meghwal S/o Shankar Lal Meghwal,
Resident Of Gram Panchayat Badoli Madhosingh,
Panchayat Samiti Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh Raj.
3. Mukesh S/o Shri Amar Chand Balai, Resident Of Gram
Panchayat Jorda Ii, Panchayat Samiti Nimbaheda, District
Chittorgarh Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Public Health
And Engineering Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.
2. The Chief Engineer, Public Health And Engineering
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh Raj.
4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh Raj..
5. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhawliya, Panchayat
Samiti Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh Raj.
6. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Badoli Madhosingh,
Panchayat Samiti Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh Raj..
7. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jawda-Ii, Panchayat
Samiti Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh Raj..
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Kumar Mathur
For Respondent(s) : None present.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
03/02/2026
1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs:
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6134] (2 of 3) [CW-8035/2018]
"xxxxxxx
(I) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondent authorities may be directed to allow regular pay
scale to the petitioners which is allowed to similar situated
employees of respondent PHED department or in the
alternative;
(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondent authorities may be directed to allow atleast
minimum wage to the petitioners which is prescribed for
skilled labour by the State Government
xxxxxxxx"
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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:
"xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 factor 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' Page 101 101
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
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6134] (3 of 3) [CW-8035/2018]
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
petitioners in terms of aforesaid precedent law as extracted
hereinabove. The needful be done within a period of 60 days from
today.
4. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
35-/Devesh/-
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 05:18:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
