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

2023 Supreme(Raj) 385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Ghanshyam S/o Man Das – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15710, 15711, 15787 of 2021
Decided on : 23-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Hemant Dutt.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Gaur, Adv

Point of Law: To become entitle for minimum of pay scale, one has to show required qualification and working against sanctioned post.

Headnote:

Payment of wages - Benefit of minimum pay scale - Petitioner had approached Court seeking directions to respondents to make payment of wages to him at minimum of applicable pay scales – Petitioners are required to work for purpose of getting minimum of pay scale.

Finding of the Court:

In case of Kanhaiya Lal (supra), Court has held a specific determination was made by Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that requirement was a result of intermingled legal position determined by Supreme Court on subject of regularization of employees while issue before Court was pay parity and that determination was in teeth of judgment - In all cases, on other aspects i.e. minimum qualification and satisfactory working of petitioners, authority has held in favour of petitioners - Respondents are directed to accord benefit of minimum of pay scale to petitioner from date his petition filed in earlier round of litigation came to be decided by this Court.

Result: Petition allowed.

ORDER :

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

1. 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.

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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).

5. 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 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 gSA To become entitle for minimum of the pay scale, one has to show required qualification and working against the sanctioned post.

prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ds fy, U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ikapoha d{kk mRrh.kZ gSA ;kfpdkdrkZ dh vksj ls izLrqr 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 /ku';ke 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] lqtkuxढ] ftyk pw: }kjk budk 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 r`rh; d{kk mRrh.kZ gSA

Jh ?ku';ke 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; 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 J`a[kyk dk U;wure osru 17]700@& :i;s izfrekg ugha fn;s tkus dh vuq'kalk dh x;h gSA

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 (emphasis supplied)

6. 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.

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

"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 t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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