PREM SINGH SODA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to be issued to the respondents to regularise his services on the post of Driver w. e. f. his date of appointment. In the alternative it has been prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant the petitioner at least minimum of regular pay scale of Driver, or he may be declared semi permanent w. e. f. date when he completed 2 years of service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) MR. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a work- charged daily rated helper w. e. f. 1. 10. 1987 and continued as such till 8. 4. 1990. He has submitted that vide order dated 9. 4. 1990 (Anx. 2), the petitioner was appointed as Driver on daily wages @@rs. 25/- for three months and since then the petitioner is working as Driver but neither the petitioner has been regularised nor he has been paid minimum of regular pay scale. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to regularise the petitioner on the post of Driver or minimum of regular pay scale of Driver may be ordered to be paid. He has placed reliance on Prem Ratan vs. The Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Fed. (1), Harphool Chand vs. University of Raj. (2), Bala Ram Sharma vs. State (S. B. C. W. Petition No. 5305/94) decided on 26. 5. 1995, Bhagwan Dass & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (3), Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&t Department vs. Union of India (4), Himmat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (5), State of Raj. vs. Vishan Das (D. B. C. Special Appeal No. 196/1992) decided on 12. 5. 1993 and Vinod Kumar vs. State

(3.) SO far as argument of equal pay for equal work is concerned, it is no doubt true that one can claim equal pay for equal work but it depends upon the nature of work and the responsibility. Each case depends upon the facts of its own. In the instant case, though the petitioner was appointed as work charged employee as a Driver and performing duties but as stated he is not appointed on a sanctioned post and immuned from any rigour of disciplinary action & responsibility. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner regarding equal pay for equal work cannot be accepted. As regards the point of discrimination with one Nasir Khan who is given regular pay scale is concerned, Mr. Jasmatia has submitted that Nisar Khan was given regular pay scale on the basis of the order of the High Court and once the petitioner is declared semi permanent he will also be entitled to get the same benefit as per Anex. 8. In view of this, the ground of discrimination is also not tenable.