Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 244 (RAJ)

Ghanshyam S/o Man Das v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-01-23

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
ORDER : In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15710/2021 :- 1. I.A. No.1/2023: Considering that the matters stands covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.12.2022, rendered in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3595/2022), the application seeking preponement of the date of listing is allowed. The matter is taken up today itself. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15710/2021 : 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 8.10.2021 (Annex.4), passed by the respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10102/2021), seeking directions to the respondents to make payment of wages to him at the minimum of the applicable pay scales. 4. This Court, on noticing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised was similar to Anokh Bai vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.372/2013 & other connected matters decided on 25.04.2017 at Jaipur Bench, disposed of the petition vide order dated 05.08.2021, directing the petitioner to file representation along with copy of the judgment in the case of Anokh Bai (supra) and the respondents were directed to decide the representation within a period of eight weeks in accordance with law and the law laid down in the case of Anokh Bai (supra). 5. The representation filed by the petitioner came to be decided by the impugned order, whereby, the Director and Joint Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment Department passed the following order ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ ds izdj.k eas ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 25-04-2017 es prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure fn, tkus gsrq in dh vko';d ;ksX;rk ds lac/k esa bl izdkj mYys[k gSA To become entitle for minimum of the pay scale, one has to show required qualification and working against the sanctioned post. prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ds fy, U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ikapoha d{kk mRrh.kZ gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ dh vksj ls izLrqr vH;kosnu dk lgk;d funs'kd] lkU;kvfo] pw: ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd Jh /ku';ke dks fnukad 01-04-2014 dks IysleasV ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls dk;Z ij j[kk x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij ;kph yxHkx 07 o"kZ ls dk;Z dj jgk gS rFkk Nk=kokl v/kh{kd] jktdh; vEcsMdj Nk=kokl] lqtkuxढ] ftyk pw: }kjk budk dk;Z larks"ktud crk;k x;k gSA rFkk budh tUe frfFk 25-07-1987 gksus ds vk/kkj ij vk;q 34 o"kZ ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk r`rh; d{kk mRrh.kZ gSA Jh ?ku';ke vuks[k ckbZ ,oa iatkc LVsV o vU; cuke txthr flag o vU; ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj 10 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ ugha djus ds dkj.k prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru ds fy, ik=rk ugha j[krk gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk foHkkxh; Nk=koklksa esa dk;Zjr va'kdkyhu jlksb;ka@pkSdhnkjksa ds laca/k esa fuf.kZr izdj.kksa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq foHkkx }kjk xfBr foHkkxh; lfefr }kjk Hkh ;kph dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ izdj.k esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru 17]700@& :i;s izfrekg ugha fn;s tkus dh vuq'kalk dh x;h gSA vr% ;kfpdkdrkZ dk vH;kosnu mDrkuqlkj vuks[k ckbZ izdj.k la[;k 372@2013 ds fu.kZ; fnukad 25-04-2017 ds vuq:i ugha ik;k tkrk gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh ikyuk esa izLrqr vH;kosnu dk fuLrkj.k mijksDrkuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA (emphasis supplied) 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General submitted that identical writ petitions came to be disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 01.12.2022, passed in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3595/2022) and petitioner's case is also identical. 7. In the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), this Court has held thus:- "A specific determination was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the said requirement was a result of intermingled legal position determined by the Supreme Court on the subject of regularization of employees while the issue before the Court was pay parity and that the determination was in teeth of the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India : (1988) 1 SCC 122 . In view of the above categorical pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aspect of period for which the petitioners are required to work for the purpose of getting minimum of the pay scale, the determination made by the respondents requiring the petitioners to have worked for a minimum of 10 years cannot be sustained. In all the cases, on other aspects i.e. the minimum qualification and satisfactory working of the petitioners, the authority has held in favour of the petitioners. In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 16.11.2021 (Annex.P/2), denying minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner only on account of him having worked for less than 10 years is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner from the date the writ petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by his Court, as indicated hereinbefore. Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order." 8. Following the judgment in the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), the present writ petition is also allowed. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner from the date his writ petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by this Court. 9. Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. 10. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15711/2021 :- I.A. No.1/2023: 11. Considering that the matters stands covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.12.2022, rendered in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3595/2022), the application seeking preponement of the date of listing is allowed. The matter is taken up today itself. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15711/2021 : 12. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 10.09.2021 (Annex.4), passed by the respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected. 13. The matter is taken up today itself. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15711/2021 : 12. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 10.09.2021 (Annex.4), passed by the respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected. 13. The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9845/2021), seeking directions to the respondents to make payment of wages to him at the minimum of the applicable pay scales. 14. This Court, on noticing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised was similar to Anokh Bai vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.372/2013 & other connected matters decided on 25.04.2017 at Jaipur Bench, disposed of the petition vide order dated 05.08.2021, directing the petitioner to file representation along with copy of the judgment in the case of Anokh Bai (supra) and the respondents were directed to decide the representation within a period of eight weeks in accordance with law and the law laid down in the case of Anokh Bai (supra). 15. The representation filed by the petitioner came to be decided by the impugned order, whereby, the Director and Joint Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment Department passed the following order :- ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ ds izdj.k eas ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 25-04-2017 es prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure fn, tkus gsrq in dh vko';d ;ksX;rk ds lac/k esa bl izdkj mYys[k gS& To become entitle for minimum of the pay scale, one has to show required qualification and working against the sanctioned post. prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ikapoha mRrh.kZ gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vH;kosnu dk ftykf/kdkjh pw: ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd Jhefr fyNek nsoh dks fnukad 01-07-2013 dks IysleasV ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls dk;Z ij j[kk x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij ;kph yxHkx 08 o"kZ ls fujarj dk;Z dj jgh gS rFkk Nk=kokl v/kh{kd] jktdh; vEcsMdj Nk=kokl] Nkij] ftyk pw: }kjk dk;Z larks"ktud crk;k x;k gSA budh tUe frfFk 01-01-1983 gksus ds vk/kkj ij vk;q 39 o"kZ ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk lk{kj gSA Jhefr fyNek nsoh] vuks[k ckbZ ,oa iatkc LVsV o vU; cuke txthr flag o vU; ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj 10 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ ugha djus ds dkj.k prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru ds fy, ik=rk ugha j[krk gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk foHkkxh; Nk=koklksa esa dk;Zjr va'kdkyhu jlksb;ka@pkSdhnkjksa ds laca/k esa fuf.kZr izdj.kksa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq foHkkx }kjk xfBr foHkkxh; lfefr }kjk Hkh ;kph dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ izdj.k esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru 17]700@& :i;s izfrekg ugha fn;s tkus dh vuq'kalk dh x;h gSA vr% ;kfpdkdrkZ dk vH;kosnu mDrkuqlkj vuks[k ckbZ izdj.k la[;k 372@2013 ds fu.kZ; fnukad 25-04-2017 ds vuq:i ugha ik;k tkrk gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh ikyuk esa izLrqr vH;kosnu dk fuLrkj.k mijksDrkuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA (emphasis supplied) 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General submitted that identical writ petitions came to be disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 01.12.2022, passed in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3595/2022) and petitioner's case is also identical. 17. In the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), this Court has held thus:- "A specific determination was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the said requirement was a result of intermingled legal position determined by the Supreme Court on the subject of regularization of employees while the issue before the Court was pay parity and that the determination was in teeth of the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India : (1988) 1 SCC 122 . In view of the above categorical pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aspect of period for which the petitioners are required to work for the purpose of getting minimum of the pay scale, the determination made by the respondents requiring the petitioners to have worked for a minimum of 10 years cannot be sustained. In all the cases, on other aspects i.e. the minimum qualification and satisfactory working of the petitioners, the authority has held in favour of the petitioners. In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 16.11.2021 (Annex.P/2), denying minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner only on account of him having worked for less than 10 years is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner from the date the writ petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by his Court, as indicated hereinbefore. Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order." 18. Following the judgment in the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), the present writ petition is also allowed. 19. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner from the date his writ petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by this Court. 20. Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. 21. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15787/2021 :- I.A. No.1/2023: 22. Considering that the matters stands covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.12.2022, rendered in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3595/2022), the application seeking preponement of the date of listing is allowed. The matter is taken up today itself. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15787/2021 : 23. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 10.09.2021 (Annex.6), passed by the respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected. 24. The matter is taken up today itself. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15787/2021 : 23. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 10.09.2021 (Annex.6), passed by the respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected. 24. The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6789/2021), seeking directions to the respondents to make payment of wages to him at the minimum of the applicable pay scales. 25. This Court, on noticing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised was similar to Anokh Bai vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.372/2013 & other connected matters decided on 25.04.2017 at Jaipur Bench, disposed of the petition vide order dated 01.07.2021, directing the petitioner to file representation along with copy of the judgment in the case of Anokh Bai (supra) and the respondents were directed to decide the representation within a period of eight weeks in accordance with law and the law laid down in the case of Anokh Bai (supra). 26. The representation filed by the petitioner came to be decided by the impugned order, whereby, the Director and Joint Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment Department passed the following order :- ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ ds izdj.k eas ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 25- 04-2017 es prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure fn, tkus gsrq in dh vko';d ;ksX;rk d lac/k esa bl izdkj mYys[k gS- To become entitle for minimum of the pay scale, one has to show required qualification and working against the sanctioned post. prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ikapoha mRrh.kZ gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vH;kosnu dk lgk;d funs'kd] lkU;kvfo] pw: ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd Jh lrohj dks fnukad 01-08-2013 dks IysleasV ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls dk;Z ij j[kk x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij ;kph yxHkx 08 o"kZ ls dk;Z dj jgk gS rFkk Nk=kokl v/kh{kd] jktdh; vEcsMdj Nk=kokl] rkjkuxj] ftyk pw: }kjk dk;Z larks"ktud crk;k x;k gSA budh tUe frfFk 16-05-1995 gksus ds vk/kkj ij vk;q 26 o"kZ ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk Lukrd gSA Jh lrohj] vuks[k ckbZ ,oa iatkc LVsV o vU; cuke txthr flag o vU; ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj 10 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ ugha djus ds dkj.k prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru ds fy, ik=rk ugha j[krk gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk foHkkxh; Nk=koklksa esa dk;Zjr va'kdkyhu jlksb;ka@pkSdhnkjksa ds laca/k esa fuf.kZr izdj.kksa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq foHkkx }kjk xfBr foHkkxh; lfefr }kjk Hkh ;kph dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ izdj.k esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru 17]700@& :i;s izfrekg ugha fn;s tkus dh vuq'kalk dh x;h gSA vr% ;kfpdkdrkZ dk vH;kosnu mDrkuqlkj vuks[k ckbZ izdj.k la[;k 372@2013 ds fu.kZ; fnukad 25-04-2017 ds vuq:i ugha ik;k tkrk gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh ikyuk esa izLrqr vH;kosnu dk fuLrkj.k mijksDrkuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA (emphasis supplied) 27. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General submitted that identical writ petitions came to be disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 01.12.2022, passed in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3595/2022) and petitioner's case is also identical. In the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), this Court has held thus:- "A specific determination was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the said requirement was a result of intermingled legal position determined by the Supreme Court on the subject of regularization of employees while the issue before the Court was pay parity and that the determination was in teeth of the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India : (1988) 1 SCC 122 . In view of the above categorical pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aspect of period for which the petitioners are required to work for the purpose of getting minimum of the pay scale, the determination made by the respondents requiring the petitioners to have worked for a minimum of 10 years cannot be sustained. In all the cases, on other aspects i.e. the minimum qualification and satisfactory working of the petitioners, the authority has held in favour of the petitioners. In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 16.11.2021 (Annex.P/2), denying minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner only on account of him having worked for less than 10 years is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner from the date the writ petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by his Court, as indicated hereinbefore. Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order." 28. Following the judgment in the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), the present writ petition is also allowed. 29. The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner from the date his writ petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by this Court. 30. Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. 31. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.