Rajasthan High Court - JodhpurBalwant Singh Solanki vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 June, 2020Author:Vinit Kumar MathurBench:Vinit Kumar Mathur(1 of 4)                     [CW-4035/2020]\n\n\n     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                    AT JODHPUR\n              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4035/2020\n\n1.   Balwant Singh Solanki S/o Shri Bheraw Singh Solanki,\n\n     Aged About 47 Years, R/o Gram Panchayat Mandli, Tehsil\n\n     Simalwada, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.\n2.   Gordhan Lal Damor S/o Shri Bhati Damor, Aged About 44\n\n     Years,     R/o     Sadadiya,          Tehsil       Simalwada,          District\n\n     Dungarpur, Rajasthan.\n3.   Kanhiya Lal Bhoi S/o Shri Lal Shankar Bhoi, Aged About\n\n     47 Years, R/o Mukam Post Simalwada, Tehsil Simalwada,\n\n     District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.\n4.   Devi Lal Patidar S/o Shri Nagji Patidar, Aged About 40\n\n     Years,     R/o     Dhambola,           Tehsil      Simalwada,          District\n\n     Dungarpur, Rajasthan.\n5.   Nitin Kumar Lohar S/o Shri Kewal Lohar, Aged About 41\n\n     Years, R/o Peeth, Gram Panchayat Ramsorjuna, Tehsil\n\n     Simalwada, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.\n                                                                   ----Petitioners\n                                  Versus\n1.   State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,\n\n     Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj\n\n     (Panchayati      Raj),     Government           Of        Rajasthan,   Jaipur,\n\n     Rajasthan.\n2.   Deputy     Secretary,       Administrative           Reforms      (Group-3)\n\n     Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.\n3.   Additional       Commissioner,           Rural       Development          And\n\n     Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,\n\n     Rajasthan.\n4.   Chief    Executive        Officer,      Zila     Parishad,       Dungarpur,\n\n     Rajasthan.\n5.   Development         Officer,      Panchayat          Samiti      Simalwada,\n\n\n                   (Downloaded on 29/06/2020 at 08:32:18 PM)\n                                              (2 of 4)                    [CW-4035/2020]\n\n\n        District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.\n6.      Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Sithal,\n\n        Panchayat         Samiti        Simalwada,            District       Dungarpur,\n\n        Rajasthan.\n7.      Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Sadadiya,\n\n        Panchayat         Samiti        Simalwada,            District       Dungarpur,\n\n        Rajasthan.\n8.      Village     Development           Officer,      Gram         Panchayat       Bhoi,\n\n        Panchayat         Samiti        Simalwada,            District       Dungarpur,\n\n        Rajasthan.\n9.      Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Guved,\n\n        Panchayat         Samiti        Simalwada,            District       Dungarpur,\n\n        Rajasthan.\n10.     Village      Development               Officer,         Gram         Panchayat\n\n        Ramsorjuna,          Panchayat          Samiti       Simalwada,          District\n\n        Dungarpur, Rajasthan.\n                                                                      ----Respondents\n\n\nFor Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Pawan Singh Rathore.\n\n\n\n\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUROrder\n\n29/06/2020\n      The petitioners have preferred this writ petition underArticle\n\n226of the Constitution of India, claiming the reliefs as mentioned\n\nin the writ petition.Learned     counsel        for   the     petitioners          prayed    that    their\n\nrepresentation may be considered by the respondents in light of\n\nthe judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter\n\nofState of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors.reported(Downloaded on 29/06/2020 at 08:32:18 PM)(3 of 4)               [CW-4035/2020]\n\n\nin[(2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148]. The relevant portion\n\nof the judgment reads as under:"60. Having traversed the legal parameters with\n     reference to the application of the principle of 'equal\n     pay for equal work', in relation to temporary\n     employees       (daily-wage    employees,       ad-hoc\n     appointees, employees appointed on casual basis,\n     contractual employees and the like), the sole fact or\n     that requires our determination is, whether the\n     concerned employees (before this Court), were\n     rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were\n     being discharged by regular employees, holding the\n     same/corresponding posts. This exercise would\n     require the application of the parameters of the\n     principle of 'equal pay for equal work' Page 101101\n     summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However,\n     insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is\n     concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the\n     factual position. We say so, because it was fairly\n     acknowledged by the learned counsel representing\n     the State of Punjab, that all the temporary\n     employees in the present bunch of appeals, were\n     appointed against posts which were also available in\n     the regular cadre/establishment. It was also\n     accepted, that during the course of their\n     employment, the concerned temporary employees\n     were being randomly deputed to discharge duties\n     and responsibilities, which at some point in time,\n     were assigned to regular employees. Likewise,regular\n     employees holding substantive posts, were also\n     posted to discharge the same work, which was\n     assigned to temporary employees, from time to time.\n     There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the\n     duties and responsibilities discharged by the\n     temporary employees in the present set of appeals,\n     were the same as were being discharged by regular\n     employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that\n     the respondent employees did not possess the\n     qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular\n     basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State,\n     that any of the temporary employees would not be\n     entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles\n     summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove.\n     There can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal\n     pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the\n     concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in\n     them the right to claim( wages, at par with the\n     minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged\n     Government employees, holding the same post.61. In view of the position expressed by us in the\n     foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in(Downloaded on 29/06/2020 at 08:32:18 PM)(4 of 4)               [CW-4035/2020]\n\n\n                                        holding, that all the concerned temporary employees,\n                                        in the present bunch of cases, would been titled to\n                                        draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (- at\n                                        the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended\n                                        to regular employees, holding the same post."Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with\n\n                                   direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the\n\n                                   petitioners in terms of aforesaid precedent law as extracted\n\n                                   hereinabove. The needful be done within a period of 60 days from\n\n                                   today.(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J\n\n                                    49-Anil Singh/-(Downloaded on 29/06/2020 at 08:32:18 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)