Dismissed

Jitendra Singh S/O Shri Gopal Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 May 2023CW/771/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions regarding wages for employees under the Gramin Janta Jal Yojna scheme. Relying on a prior bench decision upheld by the Apex Court, the Court held that petitioners are entitled to minimum wages as per revised government circulars, with respondents to comply within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be paid minimum wages as per revised circulars within three months.

Jitendra Singh S/O Shri Gopal Singh Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/009622]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23827/2018

¶4

Jagdish Prasad Saini S/o Shri Baluram Saini, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Dhani Fatehsingh Wali, Mavanda R S, Post Mavanda R S, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

¶5

Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Ramkishan Kumawat, R/o Village Hasampur, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

¶6

Rajendra Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Suganchand Sharma, R/o Village Bopiya, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

¶7

Kishan Lal S/o Shri Banwarilal, R/o Village Dayal Ki Nangal, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Panchatiraj Department Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶11

The Chief Exucutive Officer, Jila Parisad, Sikar

¶12

The Development Officer, Panchayat Sammitti Patan District Sikar

¶13

The Development Officer, Panchayat Sammitti Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

¶14

Sarpanch/Gram Secretary, Gram Pnchayat Dayal Ki Nangal, Panchayat Sammitti Patan, District Sikar

¶15

Sarpanch/Gram Secretary, Gram Pnchayat Hasampur, Panchayat Sammitti Patan, District Sikar

¶16

Sarpanch/Gram Secretary, Gram Pnchayat Chhaja Ki Nangal, Panchayat Sammitti Patan, District Sikar

¶17

Sarpanch/Gram Secretary, Gram Pnchayat Mavanda R S, Panchayat Sammitti Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

Connected with

¶20

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23978/2018

¶21

Satish Kumar S/o Shri Bhimsingh Gurjar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Jheeda, Post Babedi, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar (Raj.)

----Petitioner

[2023/RJJP/009622]

[CW-23827/2018]

(2 of 7)

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Panchatiraj Department Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶28

The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parisad Alwar

¶29

The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bansoor, District Alwar

¶30

Sarpanch/ Gram Secretary, Gram Panchayat Babedi, Panchayat Sammitti Bansoor, District Alwar

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 771/2019

¶33

Jitendra Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Dariba, Post Babedi, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶34

----Petitioner

¶35

Versus

¶36

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Panchatiraj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶37

The Chief Exucutive Officer, Jila Parisad Sikar.

¶38

The Development Officer, Panchayat Sammitti Patan District Sikar.

¶39

Sarpanch/ Gram Secretary, Gram Pnchayat Dariba, Panchayat Sammitti Patan, District Sikar.

¶40

----Respondents

¶41

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1795/2019

¶42

Bintu Meena S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Girudi, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶43

Pushpendra Singh Sekhawat S/o Shri Kanvar Singh Sekhawat, R/o Village Bisalu, Post Lekhari, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶44

----Petitioners

¶45

Versus

¶46

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Panchatiraj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

(3 of 7)

[2023/RJJP/009622]

[CW-23827/2018]

The Chief Exucutive Officer, Jila Parishad, Alwar.

¶51

The Development Officer, Panchayat Sammitti Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶52

Sarpanch/Gram Secretary, Gram Pnchayat, Girudi, Panchayat Sammitti, Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶53

----Respondents

¶54

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1920/2019

¶55

Ajad Singh S/o Shri Savat Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village And Post Nangal Lakha, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶56

----Petitioner

¶57

Versus

¶58

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Panchatiraj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶59

The Chief Executive Officer Jila Parisad, Alwar

¶60

The Development Officer, Panchayat Sammitti Bansoor, District Alwar

¶61

Sarpanch/Gram Secretary, Gram Panchayat Nangal Lakha, Panchayat Sammitti Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶62

----Respondents

¶63

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2893/2019

¶64

Jaiprakash Saini S/o Shri Sayarmal Saini, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Jhakara, Post Narsinghpuri, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶65

----Petitioner

¶66

Versus

¶67

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Panchayatiraj Department Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶68

The Chief Exucutive Officer, Jila Parishad Sikar

¶69

The Development Officer, Panchayat Sammitti, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

¶70

Sarpanch/Gram Secretary, Gram Panchayat Narsinghpori, Panchayat Sammitti, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

----Respondents

(4 of 7)

[2023/RJJP/009622]

[CW-23827/2018]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3398/2019

¶76

Mohan Lal Meena S/o Shri Ramnath Meena, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Baleta, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶77

----Petitioner

¶78

Versus

¶79

The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Panchatiraj Department Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶80

The Chief Exucutive Officer, Jila Parisad Alwar.

¶81

The Development Officer, Panchayat Sammitti Umrein. District Alwar.

¶82

Sarpanch/Gram Secretary, Gram Panchayat Baleta Panchayat Sammitti Umrein. District Alwar.

¶83

----Respondents

¶84

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5036/2019

¶85

Krishan Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Phoolchand Yadav, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Dhani Ahiran, Gram Panchayat Chhaja Ki Nangal, Panchayat Sammitti, Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶86

----Petitioner

¶87

Versus

¶88

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Panchatiraj Department Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶89

The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parishad, Sikar.

¶90

The Development Officer, Panchayat Sammitti Patan, District Sikar.

¶91

Sarpanch/ Gram Secretary, Gram Panchayat Chhaja Ki Nangal Panchayat Sammitti Patan, District Sikar.

¶92

----Respondents

¶93

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Bharadwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG

¶94

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

[2023/RJJP/009622]

[CW-23827/2018]

(5 of 7)

05/05/2023

This batch of writ petitions involves common question of facts and law, hence all are decided together by this common order.

¶101

Common prayer has been made in all the petitions for issuing directions to the respondents to grant minimum wages to them as per the circulars issued by the State Government time to time. The petitioners are not pressing their relief for regularization of services of the petitioner on the post of Pump Chalak.

¶102

At the outset, counsel for both the parties are in agreement that the issue involved in these petitions is covered by the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Pradesh Janta Jal Yojna Shramik Union, Rajasthan vs. The of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15098/2012) decided on 02.11.2016. Counsel submit that these petitions be disposed of in the light of the directions issued in the case of Pradesh Janta Jal

¶103

Yojna Shramik Union, Rajasthan (supra).

¶104

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the controversy involved in these petitions has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pradesh Janta Jal Yojna Shramik Union, Rajasthan (supra) with the following observations and directions:

¶105

“By these writ petitions, a direction is sought for payment of minimum wages at the rate prescribed by the State Government vide their Notification dated 27th December, 2010.A further prayer is made for regularisation of their services

(6 of 7)

[2023/RJJP/009622]

[CW-23827/2018]

but is not pressed by learned counsel for petitioners at this stage.

¶110

In view of the above, only issue requires consideration is about payment of minimum wages to the petitioners. The dispute came on a scheme of Gramin Janta Jal Yojna which was floated by the State. Many persons were engaged therein. The question about payment of minimum wages came up before this court and now the Apex Court has decided the Special Leave to Appeals. It was found that -Gramin Janta Jal Yojna Scheme was floated by the State Government and implementation thereof was entrusted to the Gram Panchayat. A sum of Rs.500/- per month was provided for each employee and rest of the expenditure was to be borne by the Gram Panchayat. The High Court held the Government liable for minimum wages and judgment therein had been challenged before the Apex Court. It was found that scheme was floated by the State Government thus the funds are to be provided by them only. In view of above, it is difficult to understand as to why two departments of the State cannot be held jointly and severally liable to pay the wages. The issue of apportionment of funds can suitably be considered by the State Government. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench and has not been interfered by the Apex Court for a direction for payment at the rate of minimum wages.

¶111

In view of aforesaid, these writ petitions are disposed of and ordered to be governed by the judgment of this court, as upheld by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 21st September, 2016 and, accordingly, petitioners would be entitled to the minimum wages.

¶112

It is, however, made clear that this judgment would apply only in those cases where scheme in question has been floated and implemented and not in any other case. If the Scheme-Gramin Janta Jal Yojna was not floated in a particular Gram Panchayat, then respondents would not be liable for payment at the rate of minimum wages, rather, in that case, if any of the petitioner has been employed in other scheme or otherwise, then would be at liberty to approach the Minimum

(7 of 7)

[2023/RJJP/009622]

[CW-23827/2018]

Wages Authority for adjudication of the factual disputes.”

¶117

Instant petitions stand disposed of in the light of similar directions issued in the case of Pradesh Janta Jal Yojna

¶118

Shramik Union, Rajasthan (supra).

¶119

It is goes without saying that the petitioners would be entitled to minimum wages as per the revised circulars regarding increase of minimum wages from time to time.

¶120

The respondents are supposed to comply the directions issued in this matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶121

Stay applications and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶122

Before parting with this order, it is observed that if services of any of the petitioners have been terminated / removed during pendency of this petition, they would be at liberty to challenge the action of the respondents before appropriate forum of law.

¶123

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶124

KuD/11-18

Jitendra Singh S/O Shri Gopal Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Singh S/O Shri Gopal Singh 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

Avalon Projects Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr Bajrang Lal Sharma S/O Sh. Naanag Ram Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jale Singh Son of Sh. Rupchand Vs Union of India

Nand Singh Rathore Andors Vs State of Raj and Anr.

State of Rajasthan Vs Chhitar Mal Jat S/O Bajrang Lal

Manisha Vaishnav D/O Shri Banwari Lal Vaishnav Vs Punjab National Bank