Honble GUPTA, J.—The petitioners case is that he was appointed on the post of part-time Peon (Class-IV) on a sanctioned and vacant post in the office of respondent no. 4 Gram Panchayat on 29.5.63. In the beginning he was paid Rs. 10/- per month but the amount was increased time to time. When the writ petition was filed, he was getting Rs. 200 per month. It has been averred that the petitioner dis- charges the same duties which are being discharged by the Class-IV employees and therefore he was entitled to get salary in the regular pay scale of Class IV employees with all consequential benefits but the respondents have ignored his legitimate demands. It has been prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the petitioner his salary and other consequential benefits of the post of Class IV emplo- yee from the date of his initial appointment.

(2). In the reply filed by respondents no. 1 to 3 it has been averred that the petitioner was appointed purely on part time basis and he was not discharging the duties of Class-IV employees. It has been stated that the petitioner is asked to work only for two days in a month i.e. on the days the meetings of Gram Panchayat are held. It has been denied that there is any sanctioned post of Class-IV employee. It has been averred that the petitioner was engaged without the permission of the Gram Panchayat (sic: Panchayat Samiti) and he is not entitled to get salary in the regular pay scale and the other benefits payable to Class-IV employees.

(3). In the reply filed by respondent no. 4 it has been averred that at no point of time there was sanctioned post of Class-IV in the Gram Panchayat and that the petitioner was engaged purely for working on two days in a month when the meetings of the Gram Panchayat are held and for the rest of the days, he is free to do other work.

(4). Mr. Purohit contended that the petitioner who is working in the office of respondent no. 4 for the last about 34 years is entitled to salary in the regular pay scale of Class IV employees on the principle of `equal pay for equal work. He has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Heeralal (D.B. Special Appeal No. 598/95) decided on 26.8.96.

(5). Mr. Bishnoi, on the other hand, contended that there was no sanctioned post of Class IV in the Panchayat and that the appointment of the petitioner was not made with the prior permission of the Panchayat Samiti and that he was appointed only as a part-time employee on the fixed pay and therefore he is not entitled to wages in the regular pay scale of Class-IV employee. He placed reliance on the cases of Garhwal Jal Sansthan Karamchari Union & Anr. vs. State of U.P.(2), State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Hari Narayan Bhowal & Ors. (3), State of U.P. & Ors. vs. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh & Anr. (4), Roop Lal vs. State of Raj. (5), Chandra shekhar Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Raj. (6) and Joga Ram vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (7).

(6). I have considered the above arguments. Section 23(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provides for appointment of a Secretary in a Panchayat. Clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) provides that with the previous approval of Panchayat Samiti a Panchayat may also appoint such other staff as may be necessary for carrying out the duties imposed on it. It is obvious that apart from the post of Secretary in all Panchayats, the other staff members can be appointed with the previous approval of the Panchayat Samiti under whose jurisdiction the Panchayat falls. In the instant case there is nothing on record to hold that the petitioner was appointed in 1963 on the post of part-time peon with the previous approval of the Panchayat Samiti. The respondents have categorically stated that there is no sactioned post of Class-IV in the Panchayat and that the permission for the appointment of part time peon was not sought from the Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner has not been able to establish that there was a sanctio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document