Allowed

Balram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Dec 2022CW/1455/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Bench quashed an order denying the petitioner minimum pay scale based on a 10-year service requirement, holding it unsustainable per the Supreme Court in Daily Rated Casual Labour. The Court directed respondents to grant minimum pay scale benefits.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of order denying minimum pay scale; direction to accord benefit of minimum pay scale from the date of earlier writ petition decision within four weeks.

Balram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1455/2022

¶3

Balram Meena S/o Shri Radheshyam, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Meena (S.t.), R/o Village Mahapura, Tehsil Indergarh, District Bundi. Presently Working As Chowkidaar In Govt. Ambedkar Boys Hostel Karwar, District Bundi.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Social Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Social Welfare Department, Jaipur.

¶8

The Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Bundi. ----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahipal Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

13/12/2022

I.A. No.1/2022:

Considering that the matter stands covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.12.2022, rendered in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3595/2022), the application seeking early hearing is allowed. The matter is taken up today itself.

¶15

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1455/2022:

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 10.09.2021 (Annex.P/2), passed by the

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CW-1455/2022]

¶19

respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶20

The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5695/21), seeking directions to the respondents to make payment of wages to him at the minimum of the applicable pay scales.

¶21

This Court, on noticing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised was similar to Anokh Bai vs.State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.372/2013 & other connected matters decided on 25.04.2017 at Jaipur Bench, disposed of the petition directing the petitioner to file representation along with copy of the judgment in the case of Anokh Bai (supra) and the respondents were directed to decide the representation within a period of eight weeks in accordance with law and the law laid down in the case of Anokh Bai (supra).

¶22

The representation filed by the petitioner came to be decided by the impugned order, whereby, the Director and Joint Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment Department passed the following order :-

¶23

"ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ ds izdj.k eas ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 25-04-2017 es prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure fn, tkus gsrq in dh vko';d ;ksX;rk ds lac/k esa bl izdkj mYys[k gS & To become entitle for minimum of the pay scale, one has to show required qualification and working against the sanctioned post.

¶24

prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ikapoha mRrh.kZ gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vH;kosnu dk lgk;d funs'kd] cwUnh ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd Jh cyjke eh.kk dks fnukad 01-11-2013 dks IysleasV ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls dk;Z ij j[kk x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij ;kph yxHkx 08 o"kZ ls dk;Z dj jgk gS rFkk Nk=kokl v/kh{kd] jktdh; vEcsMdj Nk=kokl] djoj] ftyk cwUnh }kjk dk;Z larks"ktud crk;k x;k gS] budh tUe frfFk 15-06-1991 gksus ds vk/kkj ij vk;q 30 o"kZ ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ek/;fed ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gSA

¶25

Jh cyjke eh.kk] vuks[k ckbZ ,oa iatkc LVsV o vU; cuke txthr flag o vU; ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj 10 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ ugha djus ds dkj.k prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru ds fy, ik=rk ugha j[krk gSA ekuuh;

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

[CW-1455/2022]

¶28

U;k;ky; }kjk foHkkxh; Nk=koklksa esa dk;Zjr va'kdkyhu jlksb;ksa@pkSdhnkjksa ds laca/k esa fuf.kZr izdj.kksa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq foHkkx }kjk xfBr foHkkxh; lfefr }kjk Hkh ;kph dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ izdj.k esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh in dk osru J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru 17]700@& :i;s izfrekg ugha fn;s tkus dh vuq'ka"kk dh x;h gSA

¶29

vr% izkFkhZ dk vH;kosnu mDrkuqlkj vuks[k ckbZ izdj.k la[;k 372@2013 ds fu.kZ; fnukad 25-04-2017 ds vuq:i ugha ik;k tkrk gSA

¶30

ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh ikyuk esa izLrqr vH;kosnu dk fuLrkj.k mijksDrkuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA"

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that identical writ petitions came to be disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 01.12.2022, passed in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3595/2022) and petitioner's case is also identical.

¶32

In the case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), this Court has held thus:-

¶33

"A specific determination was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the said requirement was a result of intermingled legal position determined by the Supreme Court on the subject of regularization of employees while the issue before the Court was pay parity and that the determination was in teeth of the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Labour vs. Union of India : (1988) 1 SCC 122.

¶34

In view of the above categorical pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aspect of period for which the petitioners are required to work for the purpose of getting minimum of the pay scale, the determination made by the respondents requiring the petitioners to have worked for a minimum of 10 years cannot be sustained.

¶35

(4 of 4)

¶36

[CW-1455/2022]

¶37

In all the cases, on other aspects i.e. the minimum qualification and satisfactory working of the petitioners, the authority has held in favour of the petitioners.

¶38

In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 16.11.2021 (Annex.P/2), denying minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner only on account of him having worked for less than 10 years is quashed and set aside.

¶39

The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner from the date the writ petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by this Court, as indicated hereinbefore.

¶40

Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order."

¶41

Following the judgment in the case of Kanaiya Lal (supra), the present writ petition is also allowed.

¶42

The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner from the date his writ petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by this Court.

¶43

Needful be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.

¶44

Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶45

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶46

183-Ramesh/-

Balram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Daya Ram Vs the Union of India

Gautam Lal Patidar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Singh Tanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Tija Bai Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan