[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prahlad Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 March, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5044/2026
1. Prahlad Ram S/o Shri Tannaram, Aged About 65 Years,
President, Village Fuleji, Resident Of Village Arjun Sar,
Tehsil Lunkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. Nanuram S/o Shri Tola Ram, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 6, Village Gusaina, Tehsil
Lunkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Rupa Ram S/o Shri Tolar Ram, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 6, Village Gusaina, Tehsil
Lunkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Jetha Ram S/o Shri Tola Ram, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 6, Village Gusaina, Tehsil
Lunkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. Suresh S/o Shri Sundar Lal, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 2, Village Arjansar Station, Tehsil
Lunkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
6. Kangra S/o Shri Premgar Ji Gosai, Aged About 52 Years,
Resident Of Dhani Khoda, Village Sherpura, Tehsil
Lunkaransar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
7. Gopichand S/o Ana Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Arjunsar District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department, Sub Division Lunkaransar, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
4. Panchayat Samiti, Lunkaransar, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan, Through Its Block Development Officer.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 11:41:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:44:29 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-5044/2026]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
16/03/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioners seeking reliefs
as indicated in the writ petition.
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, aswere 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 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
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 11:41:09 AM)
(3 of 3) [CW-5044/2026]
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 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."
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 and all other pending application(s) are
also disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
55-A.Arora/-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 11:41:09 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
