[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prithvi Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9145) on 19 February, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:9145]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4105/2026
1. Prithvi Singh S/o Abhay Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Village Haspur Khurd, Tehsil Harsoli, District Kherthal
Tijara Rajasthan.
2. Dara Singh S/o Harlal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village
Sodawas, Tehsil Mandawar, District Kherthal Tijara
Rajasthan.
3. Udai Singh S/o Shree Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Raipur Jatan, Tehsil Harsoli, District Kherthal Tijara
Rajasthan.
4. Satyaveer Singh S/o Shree Chand, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o Modhpur, Tehsil Kotkasim District Kherthal Tijara
Rajasthan.
5. Krishan Kumar S/o Mangal Singh, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o Village Bandhra, Tehsil Tijara District Kherthal Tijara
Rajasthan.
6. Budh Singh S/o Shyam Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Mator, Tehsil Mandawar, District Kherthal Tijara Rajasthan.
7. Atar Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Village Ramnagar, Tehsil Harsoli District Kherthal Tijara
Rajasthan.
8. Ratan Lal S/o Ramswaroop, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Ratakhurd, Tehsil Kishangarhwas District Kherthal Tijara
Rajasthan.
9. Yunis Mohammad S/o Din Mohammad, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Bhageri Khurd, Tehsil Harsoli, District Kherthal
Tijara Rajasthan.
10. Sube Singh S/o Sadil Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Village Mohammadpur, Tehsil Mandawar, District Kherthal
Tijara Rajasthan.
11. Sunder Lal S/o Dhan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Kamalpur, Tehsil Tijara, District Kherthal Tijara Rajasthan.
12. Rohitash Sharma S/o Kirodimal, Aged About 47 Years, R/
o Bhindusi, Tehsil Tijara, District Kherthal Tijara
Rajasthan.
13. Ram Singh S/o Daulat Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o
Village Bhindusi, Tehsil Tijara, District Kherthal Tijara
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 01:55:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:53:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9145] (2 of 4) [CW-4105/2026]
Rajasthan.
14. Samsudeen S/o Aankal Khan, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Masit, Tehsil Tijara, District Kherthal Tijara Rajasthan.
15. Ajeet Singh S/o Chhote Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Jhiwana, Tehsil Tijara, District Kherthal Tijara Rajasthan.
16. Samsudeen S/o Raghuveer, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Mehandika, Tehsil Tijara District Kherthal Tijara
Rajasthan.
17. Sahabudeen S/o Jaleba, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Tijara,
Tehsil Tijara, District Kherthal Tijara Rajasthan.
18. Dhan Singh S/o Chhitar Mal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Bhageri, Tehsil Harsoli, District Kherthal Tijara Rajasthan.
19. Samay Singh S/o Fakir Chand, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Village Bhageri, Tehsil Harsoli, District Kherthal Tijara
Rajasthan.
20. Dharam Singh S/o Lal Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Bhojawas, Tehsil Tijara District Kherthal Tijara Rajasthan.
21. Rohitash S/o Natthu Singh, Aged About 53 Years, R/o
Karinda, Tehsil Tijara District Kherthal Tijara Rajasthan.
22. Sorav Khan S/o Kamrudeen, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Funlawas, Tehsil Tijara District Kherthal Tijara Rajasthan.
23. Bharat Singh S/o Munna Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Gandwa Tehsil Tijara District Kherthal Tijara Rajasthan.
24. Mukesh Kumar S/o Amilal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Village Sodawas, Dokalnagar, Tehsil Tijara District
Kherthal Tijara Rajasthan.
25. Satish Kumar S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Nagalsaliya, Tehsil Harsoli, District Kherthal Tijara
Rajasthan.
26. Surajbhan S/o Harlal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Samda
Mundawar, Tehsil Tijara District Kherthal Tijara Rajasthan.
27. Sher Singh Jakhar S/o Tek Chand, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o Jatiyana, Tehsil Harsoli District Kherthal Tijara
Rajasthan.
28. Anant Jyoti Sharma S/o Harnarayan, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Maheshra, Tehsil Tijara District Kherthal Tijara
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 01:55:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:53:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9145] (3 of 4) [CW-4105/2026]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Department Of Agriculture, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Kherthal
Tijara, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
19/02/2026
1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the reliefs as mentioned
in the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that their
representation may be considered by the respondents in light of
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of
judgment reads as under: 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
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 01:55:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9145] (4 of 4) [CW-4105/2026]
work' Page 101101 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 been titled 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 been titled 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."
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.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
surabhii/194-
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 01:55:01 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
