Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. vs The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,

Judgment

4. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. The Director, Medical And Health Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bharatpur. The Senior Medical Officer Incharge Community Health Centre, Bayana, District Bharatpur And Member, Community Health Centre, Bayana, District Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad Mr. Anurag Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC Mr. Prakhar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 12/07/2025

1. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the pleadings as also material placed on record.

2. The limited prayer of petitioner in instant writ petition, is to direct respondents to pay him minimum of regular pay-scale of the post of Driver, in the light of dictum of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh [(2017) 1 SCC 148].

3. The factual matrix of the case of petitioner is that he was appointed against the sanctioned post of Driver on daily-wage basis, vide order dated 28.07.2005, pursuant to recommendations of the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bharatpur, dated 03.06.2005. [2025:RJ-JP:25828] (2 of 5) [CW-18773/2013] The appointment of petitioner was made by the Principal Secretary, Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, Community Health Centre, District Bharatpur, which is a Society, controlled and supervised by the Government of Rajasthan. It has further inter alia been pleaded by petitioner that since then, he is continuously discharging his duties on the post of Driver, to the utmost satisfaction of the employer and does not have any discredit of any complaint or other inquiry.

4. The grievance of petitioner is that he has been paid a meager amount of daily wage, which is much less than the minimum of the pay scale, payable to a regular appointee on the post of Driver and since petitioner is discharging his duties against the sanctioned post of Driver, equal to a regular appointee, he is entitled for minimum of the pay scale of Driver.

5. Counsel for petitioner, to buttress the case of petitioner for awarding minimum of pay scale of Driver, has relied upon Para No.60 & 61 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case of Jagjit Singh (Supra). For ready reference, Para Nos. 60 & 61 is being reproduced hereunder:- “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, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:25828] (3 of 5) [CW-18773/2013] 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 pay-scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay- scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post.”

6. In the reply of writ petition, filed by and on behalf of respondents, appointment of petitioner on the post of Driver on daily-wage basis, vide order dated 28.07.2005, in the Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, has not been denied. It has been pointed out that petitioner, after joining pursuant to appointment order dated 28.07.2005, left the job in August 2008, however, again joined on the same post w.e.f. 12.01.2010. In Para No.7 of the reply, it has been admitted that since 12.01.2010, petitioner is working on the post of Driver on temporary basis and receiving pay of Rs.5,600/- per month. Counsel for respondents submits that firstly, the appointment of petitioner on the post of Driver, is purely on temporary basis and secondly, the wages has been increased to the tune of [2025:RJ-JP:25828] (4 of 5) [CW-18773/2013] Rs.14,800/- per month. Hence, in such circumstances, no order, granting minimum of regular pay-scale to petitioner, is required to be passed.

7. Having adverted to the rival contentions of both parties and perused the pleadings as also documents enclosed therewith, this Court finds that the factum of appointment of petitioner on the post of Driver, against a sanctioned post on temporary basis, in the Office of Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society, is an undisputed fact. Though, the initial appointment of petitioner is w.e.f.

28.07.2005, yet it is an admitted case of respondents that petitioner is discharging his duties as Driver at-least w.e.f.

12.01.2010 on temporary basis. Before this Court, no complaint or inquiry against the petitioner, showing his misconduct or dereliction in discharging duties of Driver, has been brought on record. Thus, it is apparent that respondents are taking duties of petitioner on the post of Driver, which is equivalent to the duties being discharged by a regular appointee on such post, however, he is being paid wages on daily-wage basis. Accepting such argument of counsel for respondents as-it-is, at present petitioner is being paid wages @ Rs.14,800/- per month.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jagjit Singh (Supra), discussed the principle of “equal pay for equal work” and opined that temporary employees, including daily-wage employees, ad hoc employees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like, who are discharging duties against a sanctioned post, equivalent to the work of regular appointee on such post, are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of pay [2025:RJ-JP:25828] (5 of 5) [CW-18773/2013] scale, payable to a regular employee. Such principle, as enunciated by the Apex Court, holds the field.

9. In view of the above factual and legal aspect, this Court is of unequivocal opinion that petitioner is entitled to draw wages at the minimum of pay-scale, payable to a regular appointee on the post of Driver in the Office of Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society.

10. Accordingly, instant writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Taking into consideration the fact that the entire wages to petitioner has been regularly paid, this Court does not find it just and proper to pay minimum of the pay scale to petitioner from the date of filing of present petition, however, respondents are hereby directed to pay minimum of the pay-scale of regular appointee on the post of Driver to petitioner w.e.f. August 2025 onwards on regular monthly basis. Compliance of this Order be made within a period of four weeks.

11. In addition, it is hereby observed that since petitioner is regularly working in the Office of Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society w.e.f. 12.01.2010, it means for a period of more than 10 years, petitioner is granted liberty to submit a representation before the respondents, seeking regularization of his services, and if found suitable, his services may also be regularized.

12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Sachin/S-73 (SUDESH BANSAL),J