SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Raj) 70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Gaurav Sharma and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 16913 of 2019, 1043 and 4079 of 2017
Decided On : 20-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Satya Prakash Sharma
For the Respondents: Mahesh Chandra Bishnoi, Rajesh Poonia and Salman Agha associate of Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG

Temporary employees performing the same duties as regular employees are entitled to equal pay.

Headnote:

MINIMUM WAGE - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (VETERINARY OFFICERS) RULES, 2011 - RULE 11 - EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - VETERINARY OFFICERS APPOINTED ON TEMPORARY BASIS ENTITLED TO MINIMUM PAY SCALE OF REGULARLY SELECTED VETERINARY OFFICERS.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, appointed as Veterinary Officers on a temporary basis, sought regularization of their services and payment of regular pay scale. They argued that they performed the same duties as regularly selected Veterinary Officers and were entitled to equal pay.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioners were entitled to the minimum pay scale of regularly selected Veterinary Officers, as they were performing the same duties and responsibilities.

Issues: Whether the petitioners, appointed as Veterinary Officers on a temporary basis, were entitled to the minimum pay scale of regularly selected Veterinary Officers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, which held that temporary employees performing the same duties as regular employees are entitled to equal pay. The court also noted that the petitioners had been performing the same duties as regularly selected Veterinary Officers for a significant period of time.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to pay the petitioners the minimum pay scale of regularly selected Veterinary Officers from the date of filing of the writ petitions, without any allowances. The arrears were to be paid by 31.03.2020, and the petitioners' pay would be matched with the minimum of the pay scale with effect from 01.02.2020.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. The present writ petitions have been filed claiming the following reliefs:

    "(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 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 2016 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 appointee 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 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."

2. Though the petitioners have claimed regularisation also, however, after arguing for some time, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that he abandons such relief at this juncture and the petitioners would be satisfied if the respondents pay them amount equal to the minimum pay scale available to Veterinary Officers.

3. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioners were selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.03.2013, issued for filling up the post for Veterinary Officer on urgent temporary basis for a fixed sum of Rs. 16,800/- per month. In pursuance of the advertisement aforesaid, the petitioners were selected and accorded appointment vide order dated 19.09.2013 for a fixed monthly salary of Rs. 16,800/- for a period of one year or untill regularly selected candidates from Rajasthan Public Service Commission are available.

4. There is no quarrel on the fact that the petitioners are continuing as Veterinary Officers.

5. Petitioners are aggrieved because they are being paid a sum of Rs. 39,300/-, whereas the regularly selected Veterinary Officers are getting much higher s

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top