Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 121 (RAJ)

Ram Bharose v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-08

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for seeking following relief i.e., I. Regularization on the post of Class-IV. II. Regular pay scale on the said post. 2. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that he was engaged on 01.04.1983 in Gram Panchayat Badodiya, Panchayat Samiti Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.). The petitioner has submitted in his writ petition that he discharged his duties with full of ability and sincerity and yet he was not paid the pay of regular Class-IV employee. The petitioner has further pleaded in his writ petition that considering his continuous working since 1983, he is entitled for regularization of his service on the said post. 3. The petitioner has pleaded in his writ petition that though he was described as a part time employee but he had been rendering his service as a regular employee and the kind of job which is discharged by any other Class-IV employee, the same is done by him. 4. Mr. K.C. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled for minimum pay scale on the post of Class-IV employee in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 . Mr. Sharma, Adv. has also referred one order passed by this Court on 04.12.2017 in SBCWP No. 6105/2005 (Ramji Lal v. State of Rajasthan). Mr. Sharma, Adv. contends that the petitioner is not pressing his prayer for regularization at this juncture, however, the relief of minimum pay in pay scale of Class-IV post, should be granted to the petitioner. Mr. Sharma, has also referred the Rajasthan Panchayati Samiti and Zila Parishad (Class-IV services) Rules, 1959 and submits that Panchayati Samiti has power to appoint Class-IV employee and the petitioner should be treated to have been appointed under such Rules. 5. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer sought in the writ petition. Mr. Sharma, submits that the petitioner is not a regular employee and he is only a part time employee who is discharging duties for few hours and as such a part time employee should not be granted the minimum pay scale of Class-IV post. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer sought in the writ petition. Mr. Sharma, submits that the petitioner is not a regular employee and he is only a part time employee who is discharging duties for few hours and as such a part time employee should not be granted the minimum pay scale of Class-IV post. Mr. Sharma, further submits that the recruitment at present is Governed by Rajasthan Panchayati Rules, 1996 and Rule 258(2) provides that Panchayat may however appoint part time Class-IV employee on contract basis with prior permission of the Chief Executive Officer for management of properties and cattle pound etc., out of own income and further submits that for Panchayat Office, Class-IV servant may be appointed by Panchayat and their payments are made out of grant given to the Panchayat for general purpose. Mr. Sharma submits that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization as well as regular pay scale. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. 7. Mr. K.C. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner is not pressing the prayer for regularization on instructions from his client, as such the Court is not considering regularization of the petitioner. 8. As regards the claim of the petitioner with respect to grant of minimum pay scale on the post of Class-IV employee, the Courts finds that the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (supra) had issued directions to apply the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, in relation to various categories of temporary employees like daily wages employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis and contractual employees. 9. This Court has also passed the order in the case of Ramji Lal v. State of Rajasthan (supra) where the plea of the employer-State was not accepted that the persons who are working on part time basis should not be granted the minimum pay scale. This Court has given directions to the State to grant minimum pay scale to such employees, who were working for a considerable long time. 10. This Court finds that the petitioner has also placed documents on record by way of an affidavit where the Gram Panchayat has given certificate that he has been working from 01.04.1983 and he is also discharging the job for full office hours. 11. 10. This Court finds that the petitioner has also placed documents on record by way of an affidavit where the Gram Panchayat has given certificate that he has been working from 01.04.1983 and he is also discharging the job for full office hours. 11. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner is entitled for minimum pay scale prescribed for the Class-IV post and the respondents are under legal obligation to grant minimum pay scale to the petitioner. 12. The Apex Court has already upheld the right of such employees on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. 13. The present writ petition is disposed of in the terms that the petitioner will be granted minimum pay scale on the post of Class-IV & the respondents are expected to comply with the order within a period of three months.