AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Balia, J.—The petitioner, Jodhpur Region PWD [B & R] Majdoor Sangh (INTAK), Phalodi (hereinafter referred to as ''the Sangh'') has filed this writ petition on behalf of workmen whose names, as mentioned in the Schedule appended with the writ petition are as under:
Shri Kanwara Ram s/o Jiya Ram 2. Shri Ranaram s/o Ghewar Ram 3. Shri Ghwarram s/o Shri Bhikharam 4. Smt. Ganga w/o Shri Kanwara Ram 5. Shri Andaram s/o Shri Bhikharam 6. Shri Bhanwara Ram s/o Shri Dungarram 7. Shri Alabux s/o Ibru Khan 8. Shri Nimbaram s/o Shri Sonaram 9. Shri Kishna Ram s/o Koja Ram 10. Shri Bhanwarlal s/o Bhinya Ram 11. Shri Bhannaram s/o Girdhariram 12. Shri Ganpatsingh s/o Khinvsingh 13. Shri Sonaram s/o Shri Hirkanram 14. Shri Natharam s/o Shri Pratapram 15. Shri Goparam s/o Shri Jiyaram 16. Shri Madangopal s/o Shri I-Bux 17. Shri Gopa Ram s/o Shri Nimbaram 18. Shri Ramdayal s/o Shri Suganchand 19. Shri Jogsingh s/o Shri Jorshing 20. Shri Mahesh Kumar s/o Purshotam 21. Shri Babupuri s/o Shri Lalpuri 22. Shri Bhawanishankar s/o Navnarayan
The petitioner has approached this Court on behalf of above-mentioned persons for regularisation of their services in the department and for granting them pay in the regular pay scale obligation to pay same wages to the employees doing similar duties. If any discrimination is made between the employees doing similar duties under the same employer, the action of the employer is liable to be declared as unconstitutional unless the discrimination can be justified on some rational principle. As far as the present case is concerned as I have already, noticed, the respondents have completely failed in showing any difference in the nature of duties being performed by the employees belonging to the Irrigation Wing on the one hand and the Agriculture Wing on the other hand of the Command Area Development Department. Thus, it is held that the members of the petitioner Sangh have been subjected to discriminatory treatment and the respondents have violated their constitutional right of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by denying them the benefit of workcharge pay scale."
The Court further directed that the action of the respondents in denying workcharged pay scales to the members of the petitioner-Sangh is unlawful and un-constitutional and the respondents are directed to give benefit of workcharged pay scale in terms of Ex. 3 to the employees who are the members of the petitioner Sangh and also to other similarly situated persons. They are also directed to give benefit of Rule 3 (3) of 1964 Rules to all the employees after completion of 2 years'' service by them in view of the judgment of this Court in Vinnay Kumar''s case and Om Prakesh Meghwal''s case (supra)."''
The decision of this Court in Vinnay Kumar''s case has been reported in 1991 (1) WLR 192.
My attention was also invited to a decision reported in 1991 LIC 2118 (All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers'' Association v. State of Manipur), wherein their Lordships of Hon''ble Supreme Court issued directions to regularise the services of adhoc teachers before direct recruitments are made and appoint direct recruits only against the vacancy which are available after absorbing the already working adhoc teachers. It has also been brought to my notice that the question of extending benefit of Rajasthan Service Rules to Work-charge employees is already pending consideration before this Court in which case the judgment has been reserved.
Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed, with direction to the respondents to give benefit of work~6harged pay scale under Work-charged Employees'' Rules, to the various employees whose names find place in the Schedule annexed with the petition and other members of the petitioner-Sangh and also to other similarly situated persons working under PWD. They are also directed to give benefit of Rule 3 (3) of the Rajasthan Public Works Department (B& R) Including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Department Work- charged Employees Service Rules, 1964, to all the employees after completion of 2 years'' service by them in view of the decisions of this Court in Vinnay Kumar''s case and also in Om Prakash Meghwal''s case [supra]. The respondents already made to the concerned workmen while determining the arrears to be paid to them of fixing them in the respective pay scales. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of presentation of the copy of the order, As far as the question of applicability of Rajasthan Service Rules and other benefits are concerned, the same should follow the decision in the writ, petition which has been referred to be pending before this Court by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The respondents are also directed to complete the exercise of regularising the service of the work-charged employees under the existing scheme before direct recruitments are undertaken in the service in the respective cadre of the employees represented by the petitioner-Sangh.