HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4094/2021

1.

Rajendra Kumar Garasiya S/o Shri Bharta Ram Garasiya,

Aged About 41 Years, R/o Presently Posted At The Govt.

Shikshakarmi , Primary School Jhamela Pipla , Panchayat

Samiti - Bali , Distt. Pali , Rajasthan

2.

Juma Ram Garasiya S/o Shri Kala Ram Garasiya, Aged

About 48 Years, R/o Presently Posted At The Govt.

Shikshakarmi , Primary School Jawali Fali (Korwa) ,

Panchayat Samiti - Bali , Distt. Pali , Rajasthan

3.

Vagata Ram S/o Shri Hindu Ram Garasiya, Aged About 41

Years, R/o Presently Posted At The Govt. Upper Primary

School Sarjuwali (Bhimana), Panchayat Samiti - Bali ,

Distt. Pali , Rajasthan

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary , Education

Department , Government Of Rajasthan , Secretariat ,

Jaipur , Rajasthan

2.

Secretary To The Government Panchayati Raj

Department, Government Of Raj. , Secretariat , Jaipur ,

Rajasthan.

3.

Director, Elementary Education , Bikaner , Rajasthan.

4.

District Education Officer, Elementary Education , Pali ,

Rajasthan

5.

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad , Pali , Rajasthan

6.

Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board, Shiksha Sankul ,

Pancham Block , 5Th Floor , Jln Marg , Jaipur , Rajasthan

Through Its Secretary .

7.

Secretary , Rajasthan Madarsa Board, Shiksha Sankul ,

Pancham Block , 5Th Floor , Jln Marg , Jaipur ,

Rajasthan .

8.

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bali, Distt. Pali ,

Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Pawan Singh Rathore

(2 of 3)

[CW-4094/2021]

For Respondent(s)

:

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

15/03/2021

1.

This writ petition has been filed by petitioners seeking reliefs

as indicated in the writ petition.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that their

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 or 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’ 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

(3 of 3)

[CW-4094/2021]

discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the

appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess

the qualifications prescribe