Veterinary Officers sought minimum pay from the Jagjit Singh judgment rather than from filing their writ petitions, together with additional allowances. The Court dismissed all appeals, upheld the existing pay directions, and held the appellants estopped from challenging orders obtained on their consent.
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
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 370/2020
----Appellants
Versus
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 502/2020
(2 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Madhogarh, District Jhunjhunu.
----Appellants
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 711/2020
(3 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
Nagar, Bikaner. Currently Posted At Government Veterinary Hospital, Ismailpur, Alwar.
----Appellants
Versus
(4 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
Haldina Alwar.
----Respondents
----Appellants
Versus
(5 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
District Pali. (Hall Veterinary Office At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Ransigaon, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur).
(6 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan).
----Appellants
(7 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(8 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
R/o V.p.o. Sirsali, District- Churu. (Hall Veterinary Officer, At Veterinary Hospital Lohsana, District- Churu)
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 47/2021
Dr. Babu Lal Vishnoi S/o Shri Hema Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Vishnoi, R/o Village And Post Sanked, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore, Rajasthan. (Hall Veterinary Officer At Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Mokhatra, District - Jalore, Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 48/2021
(9 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
----Appellants
(10 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
(11 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
----Respondents
| For Appellant(s) | : | Mr. S.P. Sharma} Mr. Kuldeep Mathur Mr. Rahul vyas |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. G.R. Punia Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr.Mahaveer Bhanwaria |
| Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG Mr. Salman Agha |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
Date of pronouncement : 17/11/2021 Judgment reserved on : 11/11/2021
BY THE COURT : PER HON’BLE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
(12 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
without any allowances from the date, when the petitioners filed the writ petition(s).
(13 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
Rajasthan & Ors . passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.883/2015 decided on 17.04.2018 .
| S.No. | D.B. SAW No. | Appellant(s)/ respondent(s) |
SBCWP No. | Date of SB judgment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01. | 370/2020 | Dr. Kailash Chandra Dagar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. |
2381/2018 | 30.01.2020 |
| 02. | 502/2020 | Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. |
16913/2019 | 20.01.2020 |
| 03. | 711/2020 | Chandra Prakash |
1604/2020 | 17.02.2020 |
| Saini & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. |
||||
| 04. | 207/2021 | Dr. Mohd. Waseem Khan Zai Vs. State |
39/2017 | 30.01.2020 |
(14 of 21) [SAW-370/2020]
of Rajasthan & Ors.
| S.No. | D.B. SAW No. | Appellant(s)/ respondent(s) |
SBCWP No. | Date of SB judgment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01. | 7/2021 | Dr. Aniil Kumar Jangid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. |
9402/2020 | 19.10.2020 |
| 02. | 28/2021 | Dinesh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. |
1613/2020 | 03.02.2020 |
| 03. | 47/2021 | Dr. Babu LaL Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. |
10194/2020 | 12.11.2020 |
| 04. | 48/2021 | Dr. Rajendra Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. |
2350/2020 | 19.02.2020 |
“(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents No.1 to 6, may kindly be directed to regularise services of the petitioners on
(15 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
permanent basis on the post of Veterinary Officers, by taking into account their services rendered on the post since year 2013 and on the basis of written test passed by them, conducted by the respondent RPSC and to grant them benefit of regular pay scale with all admissible service benefits at part with regular employees.
(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents may kindly be restrained from dispensing with or terminating services of petitioners from the post of Veterinary Officers and petitioners be allowed to continue on the said post, with regular pay scale to the post in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors, reported in AIR (SC) 5176, in same terms.
(c) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed in terms of decision so rendered by this Hon’ble High Court in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1091/2000 titled Dr. Abhijit Sutradhar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 18.04.2002, with the same direction and petitioners may kindly be paid regular salary in same manner at par with Veterinary Officers appoinitee of the year 1998, who are not yet appointed through RPSC in regular cadre.
(d) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the method of selection adopted by the respondent RPSC for making selection of the Veterinary Officers against advertisement dated 02.05.2013 only on the basis of interview alone, may kindly be held to be unreasonable and illegal, consequently the respondent RPSC may kindly be directed to recommend names of petitioners for appointment on the post of Veterinary Officers, by taking into account their marks scored in the written test, against the vacancies, left unfilled in the aforesaid advertisement.
(e) And in alternate, if deemed fit, by an order, writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof, the respondent Department of Animal Husbandry, may kindly be directed to absorb services of petitioners against regular post, by
(16 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
taking into consideration their long services on the post and on the basis of selection process faced by the petitioners, against regular post and respondent RPSC may kindly be directed to recommend their names for regular absorption, on the ground of passing of written test conducted by the respondent RPSC.
(f) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”
(17 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
Article 7 The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant; (b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as
(18 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
remuneration for public holidays.” India is a signatory to the above covenant, having ratified the same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape from the above obligation, in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee – whether engaged on regular or temporary basis. 57. 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 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
(19 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
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.
“In view of aforesaid discussion and considering the above judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, the instant appeal is hereby allowed and the orders impugned dated 05.08.2015 passed by learned Singh Judge in Review Petition No.106/2014 and the order dated 07.01.2014 passed in SBCWP NO.895/2013 whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, are hereby
(20 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
quashed and set aside qua the appellant and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant/writ petitioner for regularisation in accordance with law and grant regular minimum of the pay scale at least from the date of judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra). The arrears may be given to the appellant/writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt copy of this judgment.
(21 of 21)
[SAW-370/2020]
counsel for the appellants before the learned Single Bench that the controversy involved in these matters is squarely covered by the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2020 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16913/2019 (Gaurav Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and accordingly, the similar directions given in Para Nos. 15 and 16 of the said judgment were issued.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
46-53Mamta/-
2 issues framed by the court
Were the Veterinary Officers entitled to minimum pay from the date of the Jagjit Singh judgment rather than from filing their writ petitions?
Could the appellants challenge consent-based orders to claim earlier minimum pay and additional allowances not pressed before the Single Judge?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State Of Punjab Vs. Jagjit SinghRelied on¶206
(2016) AIR (SC) 5176 · Who else cites this
Smt. Uji Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Distinguished¶230
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.883/2015
Maharaj Krishan Bhatt & Another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.Distinguished¶237
(2008) 9 SCC 24 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Mohinder SinghDistinguished¶237
(2017) 4 SCC 587 · Who else cites this
Dr. Kailash Chandra Dagar
Dr. Mohit Gupta
Dr. Vijay Singh
State Of Rajasthan, Through- The Principal Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry
The Director, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
VIJAY BISHNOI
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
