[2026:RJ-JD:6220]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4586/2017

1. Kailash Chandra S/o Pyar Chandji Dhakar, Resident Of Village Katunda, Gram Panchayat Katunda, Panchayat Samiti Baigun, District- Chittorgarh Raj.

2. Shiv Shankar S/o Late Shri Udai Ramji, B/c Jat, Resident Of Village Nandvai, Gram Panchayat Nandvai, Panchayat Samiti Baigun, District- Chittorgarh Raj.

3. Kailash Chandra Dhakar S/o Shri Banshi Lalji Dhakar, Resident Of Village Thukrai, Gram Panchayat Thukrai, Panchayat Samiti Baigun, District- Chittorgarh Raj.

4. Banshi Das S/o Kashi Das Bairagi, Resident Of Village Dugar, Gram Panchayat Dugar, Panchayat Samiti Baigun, District- Chittorgarh Raj.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary,., Public Health And Engineering Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

2. Chief Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh Raj.

4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Baigun, District- Chittorgarh Raj.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Mathur.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

03/02/2026

1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may kindly be accepted and allowed as under:-

(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may be directed to allow the petitioner wages of the skill labour w.e.f. date of their appointment and arrear of the same may be paid to them.

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners (iii) any other order which is in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed in the interest of justice; and (iv) costs of this writ petition be allowed to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that his representation may be considered by the respondents in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in [(2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148]. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

“60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ Page 101 101 summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same