Murarilal Gurjar @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following relief.

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that fyour Lordship’s may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition; call for and examine

entire record of the case and

(a) by an appropriate writ, order and direction inthe nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to determine minimum wage of the

petitioner from the 14.08.2013 when the petitioner was appointed as Pump Driver and pay arrear thereof with 18% interest thereon from due date to

the date of payment and further to pay minimum wages as per direction of the Hon’ble Court.

(b) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deemfit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitionerâ€​

Ms. Suman Sharma, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court in SBCWP No.15645/2017 [Janta Jal Nalkoop Union & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.] has decided the writ petition vide order dt.02.02.2018 and issued direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner

in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in [(2017) 1 Supreme Court

Cases 148].

Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment passed at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur in SBCWP No.3899/2018 [Bhiya Nath & Ors. Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.] whereby the Court has also disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the

petitioner.

The order dt.02.02.2018 passed by the coordinate Bench in SBCWP No.15645/2017 is reproduced hereunder:-

“1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs:

“A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed pay salary to the petitioners in minimum pay scale of Pump

Drivers/Operators from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits. B. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this

Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. C. Writ

petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that hisrepresentation may be considered by the respondents in light of the judgment passed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in [(2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148]. The

relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “60. 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, adhoc 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. 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. 61. 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 payscale (- at the lowest grade, in the regular payscale), extended to

regular employees, holding the same post.â€​

Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed ofwith direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners in terms of

aforesaid precedent law as extracted hereinabove. The needful be done within a period of 60 days from today.â€​

Mr. Akshit Gupta, appears on behalf of the State submits that claim of the petitioner is to be verified with regard to his working and further necessary

details are being collected from different offices in the Headquarder for granting them relief if he is eligible as per the direction passed by this Court in

the case of Janta Jal Nalkoop Union & Ors. (supra).

Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in terms of

the judgment dt.02.02.2018 passed by this Court in the case of Jantal Jal Nalkoop Union & Ors. (supra).

The necessary exercise may be carried out within a period of six weeks.