IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioners to the specific pay scale as per the circular dated 25.1.1992, and the requirement for the respondents to implement the same for just and proper implementation of the court's orders.

ORDER :

1. In nutshell, the petitioners by way of filing present writ petitions are seeking a direction to the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 with effect from 1.9.1988 (cash benefit from 1.4.1984) as per circular dated 25.1.1992.

2. This is second round of writ petition.

3. Indisputably, the petitioners had filed previous writ petitions claiming to be entitled to be paid pay scale No.07 in terms of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1989’). The writ petitions filed by the petitioners came to be allowed by this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court held that the petitioners shall be entitled to be paid pay scale No.07 under the Rules of 1989 with all consequential benefits. While granting aforesaid relief to the petitioners, the coordinate Bench of this Court observed that the denial of pay scale No.07 to the petitioners in terms of the Rules of 1989 is bad in the eyes of law and the controversy raised by the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Alwar Division Irrigation Employees Union Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.607/1991) and Narpat Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2001(5) WLC (Raj.) 427.

4. In the case of Alwar Division Irrigation Employees Union (supra), this Court inter alia directed as under:

“Accordingly the writ petition is partly allowed and it is directed that the work charge employees who have been made permanent on completion of ten years of service and who have been absorbed in the regular establishment of the State Government shall be paid pay scale no.7 under the pay scale rules of 1989.”

5. Similarly, in the case of Narpat Singh (supra), this Court laid down as under:

“12. In view of the submissions made in writ petition whenever the pay scales were revised in the year 19891, 1983, 1986, 1989 and again in 1998 the Mistris appointed under ‘Workcharge Rules’ were treated equal to Mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’. Even otherwise the mistris of both the categories are doing same work. The Government had decided in the year 1988 to revise the pay scale of Mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’ w.e.f. 1.9.81, which had created dissatisfaction amongst the petitioners, who have been discriminated. As such the revised pay scale rules as published by Government and made applicable to only one section of mistris, is discriminatory. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I agree with the submission of counsel for petitioners that the petitioners were equal to mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’ and whenever there was any revision of pay scale, the incumbents of both the categories were being treated equal and they have discriminated only by the amendment in the year 1988, which has been reproduced above. Again in the year 1998 the petitioners have again been equated meaning thereby the Government was of the opinion that because of work, qualification and being in the same department, the petitioners could not have been discriminated.

13. For the reasons mentioned above, it goes without saying that the writ petition deserves to be allowed with the direction to the respondents that the petitioners shall also be entitled to the same scale and wages equal to Mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’, which pay scale was being paid to present petitioners throughout. The petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of pay scale w.e.f. 1.9.81 as has been awarded to Mistris appointed under ‘Rules, 1967’, and consequential relief wages etc. shall be paid to petitioners. Such exercise shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.”

6. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note here that the petitioners were initially appointed on the post of “Mistri” on work-charged basis as per the Work-charged Employees Service