Smt. Geeta Devi @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming regularization on the post of Sweeper and grant of regular payscale on the post of

Sweeper w.e.f. her initial date of appointment i.e. the year 1986.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Anoop Dhand at the very outset submits that the petitioner is confining her relief only to the extent of grant of

minimum pay in the pay-scale of the post of Class-IV/Sweeper.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner came to be appointed in the Government Acharya Sanskrit College, Sikar on the post of Sweeper

initially on a consolidated salary of Rs.100/per month. The petitioner has pleaded in her petition that from the year 2010 she is being paid salary of

Rs.240/- per month and payment to the petitioner was made through cheque and copies of the salary cheques have been placed on record as

Annexure-1 to 3. The petitioner has pleaded in her writ petition that she is working continuously since 1986 and yet she has not been extended the

benefit of regularization of service and granted the benefit of regular pay-scale. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that on the principle of

‘Equal pay for equal work’, she cannot be denied regular pay-scale. The petitioner after serving notice for demand of justice has approached

this court.

Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Dhand has submitted that continuous working of the petitioner on the post of Sweeper w.e.f. 1986 makes her entitled for

the grant of regular pay-scale. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been discharging duties as being discharged by the regularly appointed

Class-IV employee-Sweeper and petitioner has rendered satisfactory services and has performed the job with complete satisfaction of the authorities

concerned. Counsel has submitted that the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148

has laid down 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) and if the duties and responsibilities are discharged by such kind of

employees, as discharged by the regular employees holding the same/corresponding posts, such employees are required to be paid minimum pay in the

pay-scale. Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by this court in the case of Jetha Ram Deora Vs. ITI Ltd. & Ors. reported in

2011 (1) CDR 10 (Raj.). Counsel has submitted that denial of regular pay to the petitioner is in clear defiance of the directions given by this court and

by the Apex Court.

Counsel for the respondent Mr.B.K.Sharma has submitted that the petitioner has not been working since 1986, as has been averred by her in the writ

petition and in fact she has been engaged since 1989. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner while being appointed, has not undergone any process

of selection and as such she is not entitled for any relief. Counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has not been appointed against the

sanctioned post and she has been working only for an hour or half in a day for cleaning toilets etc. in the College. Counsel submitted that in absence of

the sanctioned post and not performing the job on regular basis/on full time basis, the petitioner is even not entitled for minimum of pay in the regular

pay-scale of Class-IV post. Counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is being continued in service because of the interim order passed by this

court on 22.01.2014 and she is further paid honorarium as she was paid before approaching the court.

I have heard counsel for the parties.

This court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) has categorically held that the persons who are working even as temporary

employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like) are entitled for grant

of minimum of pay in the pay-scale of the post on which such persons are discharging their duties. This court finds that the petitioner is engaged from

last several years to carry out the job of a Cleaner in the College and as such she cannot be denied the right to get minimum pay in the pay-scale of

Class-IV, as per the judgment of the Apex Court.

This Court further finds that non-availability of sanctioned post will not come in the way of the petitioner to get minimum pay of Class-IV. The

continuance of petitioner in the job itself shows that the respondents are in need of a person/employee who can discharge the job of a Class-

IV/Sweeper. The employer cannot be permitted to take a plea that the employee is not required in the establishment and on the other hand, the

required job is to be done by an employee. The plea of the learned counsel for the respondents that no selection process was adopted while giving

initial appointment to the petitioner, will not make the petitioner dis-entitled for the relief, which she has confined for the grant of minimum pay. The

availability of sanctioned post can be a relevant consideration for the purpose of regularization but the same fact cannot be considered while granting

minimum pay.

So far as the plea of the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is discharging duties only for an hour or half in a day is concerned, this Court

finds that the job of a Cleaner/Sweeper is required to be done by a person who devotes the working hours to do the job and only to deny the claim of

the employee, the employer cannot be permitted to say that cleaning job is done only for an hour and half in 24 hours. The said plea is not liable to be

accepted by this court.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent of granting the benefit of minimum pay to the petitioner in the pay-scale of Class-IV

employee which is granted to the other Sweepers. The benefit of minimum pay in the pay-scale will be granted to the petitioner from the date of filing

of the writ petition. The arrears will be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of two months.