Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2417 (RAJ)

Ramnath Saini v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-12

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:- "(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant same regular pay scales, with attached benefits, which has been granted to similarly situated Veterinary Officers, who were appointed under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963, in the year 1998 and petitioners also may kindly be enlarged the same benefits of pay and perks, at par with these veterinary officers, until their services are regularized. Or in the alternate, By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant minimum of pay scale of Rs. 56,100/- of the post of Veterinary Officers, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, passed in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (AIR 2016, SC 5176) and in terms of directions issued in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16913/2019 Dr. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 19.01.2020, with similar relief of enhanced salary with dearness allowances. (b) Any order appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners" 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners confines his submissions and the prayer to the extent that the issue raised in the petitions may be decided in the light of order passed in Dr. Gaurav Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.16913/2019, decided on 20.01.2020. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents attempted to distinguish the case of Dr. Gaurav Sharma (supra) by indicating that the petitioners therein were recruited on the basis of written test passed by them conducted by the RPSC and in the present case they have been selected by the District Level Committees and, therefore, they are not entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the case of Dr. Gaurav Sharma (supra). A Coordinate Bench of this Court after referring to the judgment in State of Punjab Ors. v. Jagjit Singh: (2017) 1 SCC 148 and distinguishing the order in Smt. Uji Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.883/2015, decided on 17.04.2018 came to the following conclusion:- "13. Gaurav Sharma (supra). A Coordinate Bench of this Court after referring to the judgment in State of Punjab Ors. v. Jagjit Singh: (2017) 1 SCC 148 and distinguishing the order in Smt. Uji Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.883/2015, decided on 17.04.2018 came to the following conclusion:- "13. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled for minimum of the pay scale, which the regularly selected candidates are drawing, in light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (supra). Operative portion contained in para No.57 & 58 is being reproduced hereinfra : "57. 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 factor 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 work' 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. 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 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. 58. 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 be entitled 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." 14. So far as the directions given by Division Bench in Smt. Uji Devi's case (supra) are concerned, similar directions i.e. payment from the date of decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in considered opinion of this Court cannot be given, inasmuch as Smt. Uji Devi had approached the Court in the year 2015 itself, even before the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court given in Jagjit Singh's case; whereas the present petitioners have approached this Court much after the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court - SB Civil Writ Petition No.1043/2017 (Dr. Padam Bhusan Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) was filed on 21.01.2017; SB Civil Writ Petition No.16913/2019 (Dr. Gaurav Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) was filed on 04.11.2019; and SB Civil Writ Petition No.4079/2017 (Dr. Vikram Bhati & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) was filed on 07.04.2017. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to give minimum of the pay scale to the petitioners without any allowances from the date, when the petitioners filed the writ petition(s). 16. Vikram Bhati & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) was filed on 07.04.2017. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to give minimum of the pay scale to the petitioners without any allowances from the date, when the petitioners filed the writ petition(s). 16. The respondents shall pay the arrears for such period by 31.03.2020, however, their pay will be matched with minimum of the pay scale w.e.f. 01.02.2020. 17. The stay applications are also disposed of." 4. A perusal of the above order would indicate that the Coordinate Bench, by following the order in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra), granted the relief to the petitioners therein and the fact that they were appointed after passing the written test conducted by the RPSC was not the basis for the same. 5. Rest of the issues, as sought to be projected by the respondents, stands covered by the order in the case of Dr. Gaurav Sharma (supra). 6. Consequently, the petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of in the light of order in the case of Dr. Gaurav Sharma (supra) with a direction to the respondents to give minimum of the pay-scale to the petitioners without any allowances w.e.f 01.10.2022. 7. The stay applications also stand disposed of.