DBSAW NO.504/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.504/2008. In S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2106/1999. Raj. State Road Transport Corporation Jpr. & Anr. Vs. Jitendra Singh Date of order:- December 11, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Mukesh Kumar Verma for the appellants. Shri Kamal Kant Sharma for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Mohammad Rafiq J.):- Heard counsel for the parties. 2) This appeal has been preferred by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (appellants herein) challenging the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 4/12/2006. By the aforesaid judgment, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent in which he prayed for a direction to the appellants herein to pay him salary in the regular pay scale with all other allowances which are being paid to similarly situated Conductors with all consequential benefits. Learned Single Judge has directed the appellants herein to consider case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in para 54 of the Secretary to the State of Karnataka Vs. Smt.Umadevi : 2006(4) SCC 1. DBSAW NO.504/08. 2 3) Shri Mukesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that respondent was initially appointed temporarily on 21/12/1983 and his services were terminated on 28/7/1984. He had been reinstated in service only because of the judgment & decree dated 21/11/1994 passed by the civil court which is subject-matter of challenge in the second appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation because their first appeal was also dismissed. 4) Shri Kamal Kant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent has opposed the appeal and submitted that respondent only insisted for being paid atleast minimum of the pay scale at par with the similarly situated Conductors discharging identical duties. It was contended that the respondent was reinstated in service on 1/11/1995 following judgment & decree passed by the civil court and since then, he is being paid daily wage basis @Rs.55/- per month only. It is submitted that appellant ought to pay atleast minimum of the salary payable on the post of Conductors on the principles of equal pay for equal work. 5) Having considered the arguments aforesaid and perused the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that continuation of the writ- petitioner from the date of his initial appointment on 21/12/1983 till now cannot be disputed and his working ever since his reinstatement on 1/11/1995 is also not in dispute. Payment of only Rs.55/- per month, which is now paid to the writ petition, cannot at all be justified. Prayer of the respondent-petitioner for DBSAW NO.504/08. 3 making him atleast minimum of the pay scale with usual allowances applicable to the Conductors in the appellant-Corporation is well founded. However, case of the petitioner-respondent for regularization need not be considered because his reinstatement in service was made only because of the judgment & decree passed by the civil court, which is under challenge in Civil Second Appeal filed by the appellants herein. 6) The judgment of the learned Single Judge is accordingly modified. The appellant-Corporation is directed to pay to the respondent-petitioner only minimum of the pay scale with usual allowances applicable on the post of Conductor till disposal of the second appeal. However, it is made clear that further continuation of the respondent-petitioner in the services of the appellants-Corporation shall be subject to outcome of civil second appeal pending before this court. With the above modification, the special appeal is disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil