Allowed

Smt Meera Devi v. R S R T C Jaipur and Anr.

Rajasthan HC4 May 2017CW/5446/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the withdrawal of regular pay scale and order of recovery against a widow appointed on compassionate grounds post her husband's death. The court held she could not be treated as a daily wager and restored her entitlement to regular pay.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order withdrawing pay scale and recovery order quashed; order dated 19.02.2000 restored; arrears with interest to be paid from filing date.

Smt Meera Devi Vs R S R T C Jaipur and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5446 / 2002

¶3

Smt Meera Devi

¶4

Versus

¶5

R S R T C Jaipur & Anr

¶6

h,% 3 ' ," 8,- For Petitioner(s) : ME, $ey&n.dra: K"rnar 'Bhardawaj For Respondenqs) : Mr. S.C. Mittal p% "'* 4,

Judtament

04/05/2017

" <-.. . 6 " . ,

Present writ petitionhas ,is t b,een filed under Article 226 of X r. . A r .i i the Constitution of 1nd$ii7aln~,,,hafi.th.e,@iders &, t' , .. ,* <:.4ep. . ,% ".t **ax*:_** , * - dated 08.07.2002 @ L$+~F+pbJ:.;-$$.+&?.$ ,A. ,, kk". @k#&:,*$+ .$?& and 11.07.2002(Annex1xe5~$and -. *: r.+,v-r > **::gr_** . ftT&hG. 6).ib.6.'q"ijz~,hed te c , ..,',. t .''!,ii and set aside and t order dated 19.02.2000(Annexure-2) be restored.

¶11

¶12

Briefly stated, Guman Sihgh husband of the petitioner was working as a driver in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. He met with an accident on 22.05.1994 and he died . :,$ " ' 7%. a xi*Lr &2"i " in harness.

¶13

#a 4 I *~

¶14

Upon death of Guman Singh, the respondents issued appointment letter in favour of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Petitioner on 01.08.1996 was appointed on the post of Aposter. Aposter is engaged in stiching of passenger seats in the buses operated by respondent-corporation. Petitioner joined her duties and thereafter had undergone two years requisite training. On 19.02.2000 respondents had issued order(Annexure-2),

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[CW-5446/2002]

¶17

whereby petitioner was 'given appointment on probation, in regular pay scale of Rs.2650-4000/-. On 25.06.2001 upon completion of one year probation petitioner was given regular appointment as Artisian Grade-I11 Trade-Aposter. Order (Annexure-3) was issued on 25.06.2001, therefore, petitioner was given Grade Increment Certificate, which has been annexed with the present petition, as Annexure-4.

¶18

i The ap2pp.oin,tment order ciared. P9.02.2000 (Annexure-2) ,A"% * 8'- .P. L* '*. was ithdradn~by'the respondents on 08.07.2h024~~he said order 31 - -.&/ X has been"a"nnexed with the present petition as nnexb-1'6.25 ..-pa "+'r raL 1 && I" A perusal of order (Annexure-5) reveals thJi regular y--' . pay scale was withdraw . nbby4the .a,.(._ r;es$on.dents on the ground that v ,.ir * 2 a _.rz_ " compassionate appointment, **,a** ., which #:. was given to her, is to be ' .. ,. order dated 02 passed an

¶19

I order of recovery which i

¶20

hat impugned order Annexure-5 an ed by this court while issuing notice in 20 stay granted by this court, petitioner is being paid remunerations as a daily wager. * x

¶21

Mr. S.C. Mittal, counsel for the respondents, has refered to Condition No.5 of the appointment letter, wherein it is stated . that the husband of the petitioner was working as a daily wager, hence, the petitioner is to be appointed as a daily wager only.

¶22

The Condition No.5 in the appointment letter being bad, in the eyes of law cannot be sustained as it violates principle of 'Equal pay for Equal work'. Respondents have to ensure fair

¶23

labour practices.

¶24

It is further to be noted that the Supreme Court recently in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.10356/2016 (SLP(C) No. 31676 CCNo.

¶25

15616 of 2011), (2017) 1 SCC 148, has held as under:-

¶26

'60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal ,wp@', .in. relation to temporary A ""%. " "" a 3 5 ,$

¶27

emplge%$ $ %('daily-wage emplb.v"ees, ad-hoc 4_1. !+ fk

¶28

apporntees, employees appointed on lcasaa! basis,

¶29

.ir, r" t '2 fi

¶30

~- t contractual employees and the like), the so\e $actor

¶31

QliUph*"^{that requires our determination} is, whethe~zt'he , 9, 'as concerned employees (before this Court), wgrd rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being dischargetl by regular employees, holding the '. eters of the

¶32

factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by' the ,learned counsel representing r b the State ofPgnjab.,th.a&.aIl :the tev:porary employees : 2 >* * , , . . 9" . -5 3, ,& in the prezet .Ktnob: of' appe;al% were appointed ;:l "" . -. . T * . . i;.--a. against posts w~ch"~e'rer"also"ahlable in the regular cadre/establi$~~ent.~~~~~ w ya d ." was-:aEo accepted, that .i I d' 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

¶33

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

¶34

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 k, i, hereinabove. $er&'"'can be no doubt, that the pinci'&e 'of 'equal pay for equal wo~~~~ould be " ,$"' 79% a,pp,llcable to all the concerned temporary em'filoyees, a P; ?sd as to vest in them the right to claim wages, yz$&ar *l$Jb . with the minimum of the pay-scale of regdppb engaged Government employees, holding the same

¶35

by us in the

¶36

hesitation in

¶37

ry employees,

¶38

in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to i3 B 4.j .

¶39

draw wages at fheiemmln~& pi I! 'z5 e.: ,Of the pay-scale (- at the lowest gra'd:el',f!?,,tbe '44 . *..,], EF~~& . 2 ; ~egulaPpay-scale), extended , " to regular

¶40

of probation and order (Annexure-3) da>ed*-:2.$CJ was issued petitioner was entitled to regular pay scale available to Artisian Grade-I11 TradeAposter, because the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment as a widow of a driver, who was an employee of the respondents, hence for the whole life, petitioner cannot be treated as a daily wager.

¶41

The order(Annexure-5) whereby regular pay scale was

¶42

withdrawn and order(A3nnekure-6) whereby recovery was ordered contrary to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs Jagjit Singh & Ors.(supra), are liable to be quahsed.

¶43

Consequently, order(Annexure-5) and (Annexure-6) are set aside and the order dated 19.02.2000(Annexure-2) is restored from the date of issuance. Petitioner shall be entitled to ,r % * regular pay scale and the respondents shall pay all arrears of _14_* r salary to the 'petitioner by preparing a computabonby,,ptacing the %";: t9 *.P> petitioneTfn7the regular pay scale meant for the p0Bf-j Artisian QF 2::"~. - Grade-IF1 Trade-Aposter.

¶44

ew'Vwb'?$- f: .,>,\bh. a .,4 Computatio$shall be2ma:d? byetaking into consideration 6. +. T.%[ - -+:"%; il 22 3; &- *y ;. 9 @+ .'9 4. *.&- 2 the revision of pay scale; dea,rnessall,owance and other allowances

¶45

from time to time. The enti.re arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within th petitioner shall be entitled to 9% inter ue from the date of filing of the writ p poration shall be at liberty to ~ecover pay he officer responsible if delay in payment is

¶46

A cost of Rs.50 - .1 0001- , ,# is also awarded in favour of the 8 I ". petitioner as respondents withok any justifiable reason had made L >- _'cp,_ r F* -4 ,. t a widow to incur litigation expenses and wait for her legitimate dues for a period of more than 17 years.

¶47

(KAN WALJIT SINGH AHLUWAL1A)J.

Smt Meera Devi v. R S R T C Jaipur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Meera Devi v. R S R T C Jaipur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girvar Prasad andANR Vs Jagdish Chhabra

Karni Classic Facets Vs Rajasthan Finance Corporation

Smt Anita Devi Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt Savtri Devi Vs Asian Organo and Anr.

Royal Academy Sansthan Vs N C T E and Anr.

Sohan Lal Sharma Vs State of Raj and Anr.