Case at a Glance
A peon at an Eklavya Model Residential School and a chowkidar in a Tribal Area Development (TAD) office in Banswara, both engaged through placement agencies, sought the minimum of the pay scale paid to regular Class-IV employees. The State argued that they were not regularly selected and were engaged only on a job basis through agencies. The Rajasthan High Court held that this objection had already been considered and rejected in Dhariya v. State of Rajasthan and Hari Mohan Meena v. State of Rajasthan, the latter left undisturbed by the Supreme Court, and that the employer-employee relationship was not disputed. It directed the State to grant them the minimum of the Class-IV pay scale within 60 days.
The petitioners work under the Department of Tribal Area Development: one as a peon at the Eklavya Model Residential School, Kushalgarh, and the other as a chowkidar in the TAD office at Banswara. They were engaged through placement agencies and not selected through the RPSC or sponsored by an employment exchange. They said they perform the same duties as regular Class-IV employees, such as cooks, chowkidars and sweepers, but are denied the minimum of the Class-IV pay scale only because they were engaged through agencies.
The State contended that the petitioners were engaged on a job basis through placement agencies and, not having gone through a regular selection process, could not claim the minimum of the pay scale. It relied on orders in Sarju Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Anusuchit Janjati Chatravas v. State of Rajasthan. The petitioners relied on the coordinate bench order in Dhariya v. State of Rajasthan (08.04.2026), which had granted such relief to a similarly placed employee.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can workers engaged through placement agencies on Class-IV posts in a government department be denied the minimum of the regular Class-IV pay scale merely because they were not regularly selected?
An Objection Already Answered
The Court noted that the State did not dispute that the petitioners work in its department or that they receive lower pay; its only objection was the mode of engagement. That objection, the Court found, had been specifically considered and rejected in Dhariya v. State of Rajasthan, which in turn followed Hari Mohan Meena v. State of Rajasthan (decided by the Jaipur Bench on 08.11.2019, affirmed by a Division Bench, and not interfered with by the Supreme Court). The principle of equal pay as explained in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh and State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 SC CK 0059, read with Articles 14 and 39(d), had been applied in those decisions.
The State’s precedents were distinguished. In Sarju Devi and Anusuchit Janjati Chatravas, there was a categorical finding that no master-servant relationship existed. Here, by contrast, the Court recorded that there was “no dispute with regard to relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondents,” since the respondents accepted that the petitioners work in their offices. Finding the facts of the State’s cases “altogether different,” the Court allowed the petitions in terms of Dhariya.
What the Court Actually Held
- Workers engaged through placement agencies on Class-IV posts cannot be denied the minimum of the Class-IV pay scale merely because they were not selected through a regular process, where the employer-employee relationship is not disputed.
- The objection based on placement-agency engagement was already considered and rejected in Dhariya v. State of Rajasthan and Hari Mohan Meena v. State of Rajasthan, which the Supreme Court did not disturb.
- Sarju Devi and Anusuchit Janjati Chatravas were distinguishable, as they involved a finding that no master-servant relationship existed.
- Both writ petitions were allowed, and the respondents were directed to pass orders granting the petitioners the minimum of the Class-IV pay scale within 60 days of receiving a certified copy.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Large numbers of government Class-IV workers are now engaged through placement agencies; this ruling helps them claim at least the minimum of the regular pay scale.
- It confirms that the mode of engagement cannot override equal-pay principles where the government is the real employer.
- It shows how a settled coordinate bench ruling, left undisturbed by the Supreme Court, can be applied quickly to similarly placed workers.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Contract and Agency Workers
- If you do the same work as regular Class-IV staff in a government office, you may claim the minimum of the pay scale even if engaged through an agency.
- Collect proof that you work in the department’s premises under its control — the undisputed employer-employee relationship was key here.
For Counsel
- Rely on Dhariya v. State of Rajasthan, Hari Mohan Meena v. State of Rajasthan and State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh for minimum-of-pay-scale claims.
- Where the State cites Sarju Devi-type orders, show that it accepts the worker serves in its office, unlike cases with no master-servant relationship.
- Note that the order does not specify arrears or an effective date; frame prayers clearly on these points.
Key Takeaways
- Placement-agency engagement is no bar to minimum pay.
- Undisputed employer-employee relationship was decisive.
- Dhariya and Hari Mohan Meena applied.
- State to grant minimum Class-IV pay scale within 60 days.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are placement agency workers in government offices entitled to the regular pay scale?
This ruling holds that such workers on Class-IV posts are entitled to the minimum of the Class-IV pay scale where they do the same work and the department does not dispute that they work for it. It does not grant regularisation.
What were the State’s objections?
That the workers were engaged on a job basis through placement agencies and were not selected through a regular process. The Court held that this objection had already been rejected in earlier rulings that the Supreme Court did not disturb.
From when will the higher pay apply?
The order directs the State to pass orders granting the minimum of the pay scale within 60 days of receiving a certified copy. It does not specify the effective date or mention arrears.
Conclusion
The Court treated the question as settled: once the State accepts that a worker serves in its office and does the job of a Class-IV employee, routing the engagement through a placement agency does not justify paying less than the minimum of the pay scale. The ruling extends an established line of Rajasthan decisions to workers in tribal area schools and offices.
Practical takeaway: Agency-engaged Class-IV workers in Rajasthan government departments can cite Dhariya and this ruling to claim the minimum of the pay scale, provided their work for the department is not in dispute.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com