JEEVAN RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, writ of mandamus is sought for : (1) regularising petitioner's services on the post of Asstt. Sanitary Inspector by directing the respondent Municipality to pay him salary of that post w. e. f. 17. 8. 85 when he joined, by promoting him with consequential benefits and (2) not sending back to his original post of Jamadar but for continuing to hold post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector.

(2.) AFTER issuing show cause notice on 5. 1. 90 this petition was admitted for hearing on 17. 7. 91 but till date, no reply to the petition has ever been filed by the by the respondents especially Municipality, despite specific direction issued by this Court to the respondent No. 2 on 3. 2. 98 asking for explaining the circumstances in the affidavit as to why it was chosen not to file reply though it has been pending for a decade inasmuch as further despite fresh notice having been issued on 2. 8. 2000 and served, none has appeared when final hearing has taken place. Hence, this Court has no option except to decide this writ petition only on the basis of arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner and material placed on record. The petitioner was appointed as Jamadar in place of his father who died in service, against vacant post on 28. 9. 1977 though initially temporarily but subsequently was confirmed vide order dated 4. 3. 81 (Ann. 5 ). His case was that albeit he was qualified for the post of LDC but initially he was appointed as Jamadar, therefore, he had sent representation firstly on 22. 2. 80 (Ann. 2) seeking priority for the post of LDC and further reminder on 13. 6. 1980 (Ann. 3) but he was deprived of, rather some class IV employees were promoted as L. D. C. vide order dated 15. 1. 81 (Ann. 4 ). The petitioner has produced a copy of letter dated 19. 10. 81 (Ann. 6) to show that even the Deputy Director of Local Self Department recommended his case for being considered to the post of LDC in view of his qualification but all in vain.

(3.) IN Surinder Singh vs. Engineer in Chief PWD, ibid, the Apex Court held that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is required to be applied to persons employed on a daily wage basis. IN Bhagwan Dass vs. State of Haryana (supra) the Apex Court observed that once the nature, functions and work of two persons are not shown to be dissimilar the fact that the recruitment was made in one way or the other would hardly be relevant from the point of view of "equal pay for equal work" doctrine, and further that whether appointments are for temporary periods and the schemes are temporary in nature is irrelevant once it is shown that the nature of the duties and functions discharged and the work done is similar and the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is attracted. Even in Bhagwan Dass vs. State of Harayana (supra) the Apex Court observed as under : " IN our opinion, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to absorb them as regular employees on a permanent basis from the date of their initial appointment has no jurisdiction. That however does not mean that the petitioner should be deprived of the legitimate benefits of being fixed in a pay scale corresponding to the one applicable to respondents 2 to 6 by treating them as employees who have continued from the date of initial appointment by disregarding the breaks which have been given on account of the peculiar nature of the scheme. While, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right to be absorbed as permanent and regular employees from the inception. . . "