RAWAT RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case as on the last three occasion nobody had appeared for the respondents, this Court has directed that the Law Secretary shall remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing and in pursuance of the said order, Shri Jagat Singh, Law Secretary of the State of Rajasthan has appeared today in person and explained the steps which he has taken in consultation with the other competent authorities to ensure that the cases of the State Government shall not go unattended in future. He has also filed some documents to show his bona fides in this regard. The Court can simply hope and trust that in future the State will take proper care to prosecute/defend the cases and protect the interest of the State. The documents filed today be taken on record and kept along with this file.

(2.) Petitioner claims two reliefs in this petition. First for regularisation of his services and second for equal pay for equal work under Art. 39(d) of the Constitution of India. Shri Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that petitioner has already been regularised and the petitioner shall also be accorded seniority and other consequential reliefs as per the terms in the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 29-3-1996 passed in a large bunch of identical cases S.L.P. No. 21171/94, State of Rajasthan Vs. Mod Singh etc. Shri P.P. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has no grievance so far as regularisation is concerned. Needless to say that the respondents shall give the consequential benefits to the petitioner as per the said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court.

(3.) So far as the issue of equal pay for equal work is concerned, it is a mandate of Art. 39(d) of the Constitution of India that a person is entitled for equal pay for equal work and the petitioner has to satisfy that he is doing the work as the regular employee was doing. In the instant case, the petitioner has made a specific plea in the writ petition that petitioner was paid a salary on daily wages @ Rs. 19.00 per day and claimed that he was entitled for the regular pay scale of the regular employee which is Rs. 880.00 - 1680.00. It has further been mentioned that he was discharging the similar duties, responsibilities and work on the post of driver viz-a-viz a regular and permanent incumbent. The respondents have replied that the petitioner was given Rs. 19.00 per day as he was casual and temporary employee on daily wages. However, the respondents do not deny that the work done by him was in any way less or of inferior quality than taken from the regular employee or the petitioner was not doing the similar duties or carrying on the same responsibilities etc. Admittedly, petitioner was appointed on 19-12-1988 for a period of two months on temporary basis as is evident from his appointment letter dated 19-12-1988-contained in Annexure P/1 to the petition. The petitioner was further appointed for a period of 89 days vide order dated 15th March, 1989, contained in Annexure 3 to the petition. The petitioner was given an artificial break in his service only for the reason that the respondent No. 1 Director had issued an order dated 19th March, 1988 contained in Annexure P/2 to the petition, to all the project officers to the effect that employees working on daily wages should not be allowed to complete continue service of 90 days and they should not be allowed to complete 240 days in one year.