Satveer Vs the State of Rajasthan

¶1

(1 of 12)

¶2

[CW-15710/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15710/2021

¶5

Ghanshyam S/o Man Das, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Kamad, Resident Of Barlajsar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu Presently Working As Cook In Government Ambedkar Hostel Sujangarh, District Churu.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

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

¶9

The Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Directorate Of Social Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

The Hostel Superintendent, Rajkiya Ambedkar Chhatrawas Sujangarh, District Churu.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15711/2021

¶14

Lichhma Devi W/o Shri Shera Ram, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Benatha Omji, Tehsil Bidasar, District Churu, Presently Working As Cook, Rajkiya Ambedkar Chhatrawas Chhapar, District Churu.

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶18

The Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Directorate Of Social Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶19

The Hostel Superintendent, Rajkiya Ambedkar Chhatrawas Chhapar, District Churu.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15787/2021

¶22

Satveer S/o Shri Ram Chander, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Dhaniyasha, Tehsil

¶23

(2 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]

¶24

Taranagar, District Churu Presently Working On The Post Of Chowkidar, Government Ambedkar Hostel, Taranagar District Churu.

¶25

----Petitioner

¶26

Versus

¶27

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶28

The Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Directorate Of Social Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶29

The Hostel Superintendent, Dr. B.r. Ambedkar Government Hostel, Taranagar, District Churu.

¶30

----Respondents

¶31

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Hemant Dutt.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Anil Gaur,AAG.

¶32

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶33

Order

¶34

23/01/2023

¶35

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15710/2021 :-

¶36

I.A. No.1/2023:

¶37

Considering that the matters 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 preponement of the date of listing is allowed. The matter is taken up today itself. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15710/2021:

¶38

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 8.10.2021 (Annex.4), passed by the respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶39

(3 of 12)

¶40

[CW-15710/2021]

¶41

The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10102/2021), seeking directions to the respondents to make payment of wages to him at the minimum of the applicable pay scales.

¶42

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 vide order dated 05.08.2021, 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).

¶43

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 :-

¶44

ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ ds izdj.k eas ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 2504-2017 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.

¶45

prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh के पद के लि�ए U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ikapoha d{kk mRrh.kZ gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ की और से ्ቚस्तुत vH;kosnu dk lgk;d funs'kd] lkU;kvfo] pw: ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd Jh घनश्याम dks fnukad 01-04-2014 dks IysleasV ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls dk;Z ij j[kk x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij ;kph yxHkx 07 o"kZ ls dk;Z dj jgk gS rFkk Nk=kokl v/kh{kd] jktdh; vEcsMdj Nk=kokl] सुजानगढ़] ftyk pw: }kjk इनका

¶46

(4 of 12)

¶47

[CW-15710/2021]

¶48

dk;Z larks"ktud crk;k x;k gSA rFkk budh tUe frfFk 25-07-1987 gksus ds vk/kkj ij vk;q 34 o"kZ ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk तृतीय d{kk mRrh.kZ gSA

¶49

Jh घनश्याम] 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 Ja[kyk dk U;wure osru ds fy, ik=rk ugha j[krk gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk foHkkxh; Nk=koklksa esa dk;Zjr va'kdkyhu jlksb;ka@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 ds in dh osru Ja[kyk dk U;wure osru 17]700@& :i;s izfrekg ugha fn;s tkus dh vuq'ka"kk dh x;h gSA

¶50

vr% ;kfpdkdrkZ 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

¶51

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

¶52

(emphasis supplied)

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General 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.

¶54

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

¶55

"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.

¶56

(5 of 12)

¶57

[CW-15710/2021]

¶58

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.

¶59

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.

¶60

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.

¶61

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 his Court, as indicated hereinbefore.

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

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.

¶65

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

¶66

Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶67

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15711/2021 :-

(6 of 12)

[CW-15710/2021]

I.A. No.1/2023:

Considering that the matters 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 preponement of the date of listing is allowed. The matter is taken up today itself.

¶72

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15711/2021:

¶73

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 10.09.2021 (Annex.4), passed by the respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶74

The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9845/2021), seeking directions to the respondents to make payment of wages to him at the minimum of the applicable pay scales.

¶75

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 vide order dated 05.08.2021, 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).

¶76

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 :-

¶77

(7 of 12)

¶78

[CW-15710/2021]

¶79

ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ ds izdj.k eas ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 2504-2017 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.

¶80

prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ikapoha mRrh.kZ gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vH;kosnu dk जिज�ाधि�कारी] pw: ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj

¶81

ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd ्ቦीमती लि�छमा देवी dks fnukad 01-07-2013 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 निनरंतर dk;Z dj jgh gS rFkk Nk=kokl v/kh{kd] jktdh; vEcsMdj Nk=kokl] छापर] ftyk pw: }kjk dk;Z larks"ktud crk;k x;k gSA budh tUe frfFk 01-01-1983 gksus ds vk/kkj ij vk;q 39 o"kZ ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk सा्ቌर gSA

¶82

्ቦीमती लि�छमा देवी] 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 Ja[kyk dk U;wure osru ds fy, ik=rk ugha j[krk gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk foHkkxh; Nk=koklksa esa dk;Zjr va'kdkyhu jlksb;ka@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 ds in dh osru Ja[kyk dk U;wure osru 17]700@& :i;s izfrekg ugha fn;s tkus dh vuq'ka"kk dh x;h gSA

¶83

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

¶84

(emphasis supplied)

¶85

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General 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.

¶86

(8 of 12)

¶87

[CW-15710/2021]

¶88

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

¶89

thus:-

¶90

"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.

¶91

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.

¶92

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.

¶93

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.

¶94

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 his Court, as indicated hereinbefore.

¶95

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

¶96

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

¶97

(9 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]

¶98

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.

¶99

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

¶100

Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶101

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15787/2021 :-

¶102

I.A. No.1/2023:

¶103

Considering that the matters 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 preponement of the date of listing is allowed. The matter is taken up today itself.

¶104

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15787/2021:

¶105

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 10.09.2021 (Annex.6), passed by the respondents, whereby, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶106

The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6789/2021), seeking directions to the respondents to make payment of wages to him at the minimum of the applicable pay scales.

¶107

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 vide order dated 01.07.2021, directing the petitioner to file representation along

¶108

(10 of 12)

¶109

[CW-15710/2021]

¶110

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).

¶111

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 :-

¶112

ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vuks[k ckbZ ds izdj.k eas ikfjr fu.kZ; fnuakd 2504-2017 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.

¶113

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] lkU;kvfo] pw: ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd Jh सतवीर dks fnukad 01-082013 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] तारानगर] ftyk pw: }kjk dk;Z larks"ktud crk;k x;k gSA budh tUe frfFk 16-05-1995 gksus ds vk/kkj ij vk;q 26 o"kZ ,oa 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk स्नातक gSA

¶114

Jh सतवीर] 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 Ja[kyk dk U;wure osru ds fy, ik=rk ugha j[krk gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk foHkkxh; Nk=koklksa esa dk;Zjr va'kdkyhu jlksb;ka@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 ds in dh osru Ja[kyk dk U;wure osru 17]700@& :i;s izfrekg ugha fn;s tkus dh vuq'ka"kk dh x;h gSA

¶115

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

[CW-15710/2021]

(11 of 12)

(emphasis supplied)

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General 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.

¶120

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

¶121

"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.

¶122

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.

¶123

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.

¶124

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.

¶125

The respondents are directed to accord the benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner from the

¶126

(12 of 12) [CW-15710/2021]

¶127

date the writ petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by his Court, as indicated hereinbefore.

¶128

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

¶129

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

¶130

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.

¶131

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

¶132

Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶133

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶134

96-97-98-/Jitender//-

Satveer v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satveer v. the 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

Hari Kishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Gudiya Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Purshotam Garg Vs Jodhpur Development Authority

Hira Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ummed Singh Vs State and Anr.

Rakesh Alias Rekhraj Vs State of Rasthan