Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 741 (RAJ)

Vidya Devi v. State

2005-03-03

HARBANS LAL, V.K.BALI

body2005
Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-The appellant, in so far as his case with regard to regularisation of service is concerned appears to be satisfied with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in that connection. He, however, is not satisfied with the part of the Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 03.06.1995 insofar as the case of the petitioner with regard to equal pay for equal work has not been considered. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant on the basis of the two Judgment s of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1990 LIC (1) 126 and also State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Piara Singh & Ors., 1992 (4) SCC 118 contends that even though it may be a case of daily wager, if he is found to be performing the same duties as a regular employee on the same post, he shall be entitled to regular pay scale commensurate to that which is paid to regular employees. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, out of several judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that it is not possible to keep parity of daily wager with that of regular employee, however, relies upon two Judgment s in Mahendra L. Jain & Ors. vs. Indore Development Authority & Ors., 2005 (1) SCC 639 and A. Umarani vs. Registrar Cooporative Society & Ors., 2004 (7) SCC 112 . 4. Confronted with two judicial precedents as referred to above, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad (Supra) is by a larger bench and has to be followed and further that in none of the Judgment s of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, even reference has been made to the Judgment rendered in Bhagwati Prasad (Supra). 5. We do not find any merit in the only contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, as mentioned above. The Judgment of A. Umarani (Supra) is of a Co-ordinate Bench as that in Bhagwati Prasad (Supra) and it is too well settled that a later Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench has a precedent over the earlier one. 6. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 7. The Judgment of A. Umarani (Supra) is of a Co-ordinate Bench as that in Bhagwati Prasad (Supra) and it is too well settled that a later Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench has a precedent over the earlier one. 6. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 7. At this stage, the Counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is entitled to minimum daily wages as settled by the Government Learned Counsel for the respondents state that in case the appellant is not being paid the minimum daily wages sanctioned by the Government, he shall indeed be paid the same.