Allowed

Mata Prasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC25 Oct 2018CW/15210/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petitions challenging an order denying Pay Scale No.7 benefits to absorbed work charge employees. Court quashed order rejecting claim based solely on lack of union membership, relying on precedents mandating equal pay for equal work.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned order dated 3/3/2016. Petitioners granted Pay Scale No.7 under Rules 1989 with consequential benefits within six weeks.

Mata Prasad Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15136/2017

¶3

Devman Ram S/o Shri Bhengi Ram, R/o Sobahana Bhalsha, Post Azmatigarh, District Azamgarh U.p At Mahi Colony, Banswara, District Banswara Raj..

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj.. 2. The Secretary Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Raj. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj. 4. The Executive Engineer, Dam Division-I, Mahi Dam Area, Banswara, District Banswara Raj..

¶7

The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Peepalkhunt, District Pratapgarh Raj..

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15138/2017

¶11

Kishore Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma, R/o

¶12

Gamadi, Post Talwada, Tehsil And District Banswara Raj..

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj..

¶16

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶17

The Executive Engineer, Distributary Division Left Main Canal Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Garhi, District Banswara Raj..

¶18

The Assistant Engineer, Distributory Sub Division-Ii, Left Main Canal, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Bagidora, District Banswara Raj..

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15153/2017

¶21

Rajmal Jain S/o Shri Shobhagmal Jain, R/o Ghatol, District Banswara Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

(2 of 11)

[CW-15136/2017]

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj.

¶27

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶28

The Executive Engineer, Distributary Sub-Division-1/1, Right Main Canal, Mahi Project, Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶29

The Assistant Engineer, Distributary Sub-Division-1/1, Right Main Canal, Mahi Project, Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶30

----Respondents

¶31

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15154/2017

¶32

Gangashankar S/o Shri Jeeva, R/o Garadiya, Post Kalinjara, P.s. Kalinjara, Tehsil And District Banswara Raj.

¶33

----Petitioner

¶34

Versus

¶35

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj.

¶36

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶37

The Executive Engineer, Distributary Division Left Main Canal Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Garhi, District Banswara Raj.

¶38

The Assistant Engineer, Distributary Sub-Division-Iind Left Main Canal, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Bagidora, District Banswara Raj.

¶39

----Respondents

¶40

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15155/2017

¶41

Gomti Shankar S/o Shri Shiv Shankar, R/o Talwada, Tehsil And District Banswara Raj..

¶42

----Petitioner

¶43

Versus

¶44

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj..

¶45

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶46

The Executive Engineer, Distributary Division Left Main Canal Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Garhi, District Banswara Raj..

¶47

The Assistant Engineer, Distributory Sub Division-Iii, Left Main Canal, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Talwada, District Banswara Raj..

----Respondents

(3 of 11)

[CW-15136/2017]

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15156/2017

¶52

Ratan Lal S/o Shri Dhanji, R/o Kundla, Post Kundla, Tehsil And District Banswara Raj.

¶53

----Petitioner

¶54

Versus

¶55

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj.

¶56

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶57

The Executive Engineer, Dam Division, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶58

The Assistant Engineer, Dam Sub- Division-Ivth, Dam Division, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶59

----Respondents

¶60

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15157/2017

¶61

Babu Lal S/o Shri Magan Lal, R/o House No. 53, Himaliya Nagar, Udaipur Road, Banswara Raj.

¶62

----Petitioner

¶63

Versus

¶64

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj.

¶65

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶66

The Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Mahi Project, Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶67

The Assistant Engineer, Mechanical Sub-Division-Ii, Division-First, Mahi Project, Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶68

----Respondents

¶69

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15158/2017

¶70

Keval Krishan Chobisa S/o Shri Heera Lal, R/o Palace Road, Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶71

----Petitioner

¶72

Versus

¶73

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj.

¶74

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶75

The Executive Engineer, Dam Division, Mahi Project, Banswara.

¶76

The Assistant Engineer, Right Main Canal Sub-Division-

¶77

(4 of 11)

¶78

[CW-15136/2017]

¶79

IInd Mahi Project, Ghatol, District Banswara Raj.

¶80

1. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara Raj. 6. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ghatol, District Banswara Raj.

¶81

----Respondents

¶82

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15159/2017

¶83

Veer Singh S/o Shri Gotiya, R/o Village Baroda, Tehsil And District Banswara Raj.

¶84

----Petitioner

¶85

Versus

¶86

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj.

¶87

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶88

The Executive Engineer, Building And Right Main Canal Division, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, District Banswara Raj.

¶89

The Assistant Engineer, Mukhayawas Sub- Division, Building And Right Main Canal Division, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, District Banswara Raj.

¶90

----Respondents

¶91

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15160/2017

¶92

Vijaypal S/o Shri Hurji, R/o Village Saredi Bhilan, Post Suwala, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara Raj.

¶93

----Petitioner

¶94

Versus

¶95

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj.

¶96

The Superintendent Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶97

The Executive Engineer, Distributary Division-Ist Left Main Canal Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Garhi, District Banswara Raj.

¶98

The Assistant Engineer, Distributary Sub-Division-Iind Left Main Canal, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Bagidor, District Banswara Raj.

¶99

----Respondents

¶100

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15167/2017

¶101

Yogendra Singh S/o Shri Tej Singh, R/o Village Farukhabad U.p At Present Mahi Colony, Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶102

----Petitioner

¶103

Versus

¶104

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water

¶105

(5 of 11)

¶106

[CW-15136/2017]

¶107

Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj.

¶108

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶109

The Executive Engineer, Building And Right Main Canal Division, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, District Banswara Raj.

¶110

The Assistant Engineer, Mukhayawas Sub- Division, Building And Right Main Canal Division, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, District Banswara Raj.

¶111

----Respondents

¶112

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15168/2017

¶113

Bijendra Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, R/o Village Bichhore, District Gurgaon Hr, At Present Mahi Colony, Banswara, District Banswara Raj..

¶114

----Petitioner

¶115

Versus

¶116

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj..

¶117

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶118

The Executive Engineer, Building And Right Main Canal, Distributary Sub-Division-Iiird, Mahi Project, Ghatol, District Banswara Raj..

¶119

The Assistant Engineer Building And Right Main Canal, Distributary Sub-Division-Iiird, Mahi Project, Ghatol, District Banswara Raj..

¶120

----Respondents

¶121

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15205/2017

¶122

Shankar Lal Rathore S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Village Garniya, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali Raj.

¶123

----Petitioner

¶124

Versus

¶125

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj.

¶126

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶127

The Executive Engineer, Dam Division-Ist, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶128

The Assistant Engineer, Sub Division-Ist, Dam DivisionIst, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

----Respondents

(6 of 11)

[CW-15136/2017]

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15210/2017

¶133

Mata Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Vidhaya Ram, R/o I/09, Moreja Tower, Indra Bajar, Near Ajmeri Gate, Jaipur Raj. At Present Mahi Colony, Banswara, District Banswara Raj..

¶134

----Petitioner

¶135

Versus

¶136

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj..

¶137

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶138

The Executive Engineer, Building And Right Main Canal, Distributary Sub-Division-Iiird, Mahi Project, Ghatol, District Banswara Raj..

¶139

The Assistant Engineer, Building And Right Main Canal, Distributary Sub-Division-Iiird, Mahi Project, Ghatol, District Banswara Raj..

¶140

----Respondents

¶141

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15213/2017

¶142

Labh Chand S/o Shri Thanwara Ji, R/o Baroda, Post Panch Lawasa, District Banswara Raj.

¶143

----Petitioner

¶144

Versus

¶145

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj.

¶146

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶147

The Executive Engineer, Dam Division-I, Mahi Project, Banswara Raj.

¶148

The Assistant Engineer, Dam Sub- Division-Ivth, Dam Division I, Mahi Project, Banswara, Raj.

¶149

----Respondents

¶150

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15214/2017

¶151

Kalu Ram S/o Shri Punja, R/o Hameerpura Bada, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara Raj.

¶152

----Petitioner

¶153

Versus

¶154

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Raj.

¶155

The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi

¶156

(7 of 11)

¶157

[CW-15136/2017]

¶158

Bajaj Sagar Project Banswara, District Banswara Raj.

¶159

1. The Executive Engineer, Distributary Division-Ist, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Dam Area, District Banswara Raj.

¶160

The Assistant Engineer, Sub Division-Iiird /ist, Bagidora, District Banswara Raj.

¶161

----Respondents

¶162

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶163

: Mr. Ravindra Singh.

¶164

: Mr. N.S.Rajpurohit, AGC.

¶165

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

¶166

25/10/2018

¶167

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to grant Pay Scale No.7 in terms of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1989 (‘the Rules, 1989’) and ensure compliance of the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

¶168

It is inter alia claimed in the writ petitions that the petitioners were initially appointed on the post of ‘Mistry’ on workcharge basis in the respondent Department, on completion of 10 years satisfactory services, they were given the benefit of permanent status and has subsequently been absorbed in regular establishment of the State Government. It is inter alia indicated that a writ petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 607/1991 was filed by Alwar Division Irrigation Employees Union inter alia seeking grant of Pay Scale no.7 under the Rules of 1989, which writ petition was partly allowed on 16/1/2001 and it was directed that the workcharge employees, who have been made permanent on completion of 10 years of service and who have been absorbed in the regular establishment of the State Government shall be paid Pay Scale No.7 under the Rules of 1989, which judgment was

¶169

(8 of 11)

¶170

[CW-15136/2017]

¶171

upheld by the Division Bench in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.516/2002 decided on 8/7/2002 at Jaipur Bench and Special Leave Petition was also rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2/12/2010.

¶172

The respondents after the judgment was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court issued instructions for compliance of the directions given in the judgment by learned Single Judge, whereafter, when the said relief was not granted to the petitioners, they filed writ petitions before this Court, which came to be decided by order dated 7/7/2014 (Annex.7), wherein, it was observed that as the representations filed by the petitioners were pending with the respondents, they may pursue the same, whereon the impugned order dated 3/3/2016 (Annex.9) has been issued inter alia indicating that as the petitioners herein were not the members of the Alwar Division Irrigation Employees Union, the judgment would not be applicable to them and consequently rejected the representations.

¶173

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that action of the respondents in denying the benefit of judgment in the case of Alwar Division Irrigation Employees Union (supra) merely on the count that the petitioners were not the members of the Union, despite the fact that the case of the petitioners is otherwise squarely covered by the said judgment, is not justified.

¶174

Further reliance has been placed on the judgment in Narpat Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan : 2001 (5) WLC (Raj.) 427 , wherein, the issue has been dealt with by this Court independent of the judgment in the case of Alwar Division Irrigation employees Union (supra) and it is claimed that the petitioners are entitled to similar relief.

¶175

(9 of 11)

¶176

[CW-15136/2017]

¶177

A reply to the writ petitions has been filed by the respondents inter alia indicating that as the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualifications, they are not entitled to any relief and, therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed.

¶178

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. A perusal of the order impugned dated 3/3/2016 (Annex.9) passed by the respondents would reveal that the only reason indicated by the respondents for rejecting the representations made by the petitioners is that the petitioners are not members of Alwar Division Irrigation Employees Union, nowhere in the order the respondents have dealt with and/or indicated that the petitioners do not possess the required qualification and as such the plea now sought to be raised in reply to the writ petitions cannot be countenanced.

¶179

In the case of Alwar Division Irrigation Employees Union (supra), this Court inter alia directed as under:

¶180

“Accordingly the writ petition is partly allowed and it is directed that the work charge employees who have been made permanent on completion of ten years of service and who have been absorbed in the regular establishment of the State government shall be paid pay scale no.7 under the pay scale rules of 1989.”

¶181

Similarly, in the case of Narpat Singh (supra), this Court laid down as under:

¶182

“12. In view of the submissions made in writ petition whenever the pay scales were revised in the year 1981, 1983, 1986, 1989 and again in 1998 the Mistris appointed under ‘Workcharge Rules’ were treated equal to Mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’. Even otherwise the mistris of both the categories are doing same work. The Government had decided in the year 1988 to revise the pay scale of Mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’ w.e.f. 1.9.81, which had created dissatisfaction amongst the petitioners, who have been discriminated. As such the

¶183

(10 of 11)

¶184

[CW-15136/2017]

¶185

revised pay scale rules as published by Government and made applicable to only one section of mistris, is discriminatory. After hearing counsel for petitioner, I agree with the submission of counsel for petitioners that the petitioners were equal to mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’ and whenever there was any revision of pay scale, the incumbents of both the categories were being treated equal and they have discriminated only by the amendment in the year 1988, which has been reproduced above. Again in the year 1998 the petitioners have again been equated, meaning thereby the Government was of the opinion that because of work, qualification and being in the same department, the petitioners could not have been discriminated.

¶186

For the reasons mentioned above, it goes without saying that the writ petition deserves to be allowed with the direction to the respondents that the petitioners shall also be entitled to the same scale and wages equal to Mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’, which pay scale was being paid to present petitioners throughout. The petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of pay scale w.e.f. 1.9.81 as has been awarded to Mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’, and consequential relief wages etc. shall be paid to petitioners. Such exercise shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶187

With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.”

¶188

The case of the petitioners apparently is squarely covered by the judgments in the case of Alwar Division Irrigation Employees Union (supra) and Narpat Singh (supra) and, therefore, the action of the respondents in passing the order dated 3/3/2016 (Annex.9) rejecting the representations filed by the petitioners only on account of the fact that the petitioners are not members of the Alwar Division Irrigation Employees Union cannot be sustained, as merely because somebody is not a member of the union and is otherwise entitled to grant of relief, the same cannot be denied on the ground as indicated by the respondents.

¶189

Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The orders dated 3/3/2016 (Annex.9) passed by the respondents are quashed and set aside. The petitioners shall also be entitled to be paid Pay Scale No.7 under the Rules of 1989 with

¶190

(11 of 11)

¶191

[CW-15136/2017]

¶192

all consequential benefits as granted in the case of Alwar Division Irrigation Employees Union (supra) and Narpat Singh (supra). Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶193

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶194

baweja-120 to 135

Mata Prasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mata Prasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

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

Shashi Kant Sharma Vs Anand Kumar and Ors.

Shivraj Singh Vs Anand Kumar and Ors.

Punit Agarwal Vs Anand Kumar and Ors.

Jaideep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Patidar Vs State of Rajasthan

Jayanti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan