[2026:RJ-JD:6234]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7105/2018 Shambhu Lal S/o Shri Nana Lalji Gurjar, Resident Of Village Panchil, Gram Panchayat Netawal Maharaj, District Chittorgarh Raj..

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

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

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

5. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Netwal Maharaj, Panchayat Samiti Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh Raj..

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

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

03/02/2026

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article

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

“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may be directed to allow regular pay scale to the petitioner which is allowed to similar situated employees of respondent PHED department or in the alternative;

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may be directed to allow atleast minimum wage to the petitioner which is prescribed for skilled labour by the State Government (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 petitioner 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 as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be appl