High Court disposed of a writ petition praying for equal pay for equal work. The bench referred to Supreme Court guidelines and directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within 60 days.
Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for equal pay for equal work within 60 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13152/2020
Nain Singh S/o Panney Singh, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Chatra Ka Gura, Bhagora, District Pali.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal through V.C. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
06/01/2021
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the reliefs as mentioned in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that his representation 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.: (2017) 1 SCC 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
(2 of 2)
[CW-13152/2020]
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’ Page 101 101 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 payscale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post.
Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in terms of aforesaid law as extracted hereinabove. The needful be done within a period of 60 days from today.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
63-PKS/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's representation for equal pay for equal work should be considered by the respondents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors.Referred¶18
(2017) 1 SCC 148 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nain Singh
State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary Department Of Agriculture
Director Department Of Agriculture
Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad Pali
Vikas Adhikari
Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bhagora
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
