1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.30/1994 Manohar Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 13/10/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri A.K. Bhagava for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Avasthi, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition was originally filed on behalf of the two petitioners, but petitioner no.1 Manohar Lal expired during the pendency of the writ petition and no steps have been taken for bringing his legal heirs on record. The writ petition in so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, therefore abates and survives only in respect of petitioner no.2. Shri A.K. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed in the regular pay scale by order dated 23.11.1992 along with six other employees who were all originally appointed on daily wages. Referring to the said order, it is contended that the 2 appointment of all these persons was made on the basis of seniority i.e. on the basis of date of initial appointment on daily wage basis. While the juniors to the petitioner- Lala Ram namely, Shankar Lal Sharma and Mohd. Ismile, were granted benefit of bonus of Rs.1411/- for the year 1992-93, such benefit was not granted to the petitioner. Shri B.L. Avasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the benefit as per Government Circular dated 21.10.1993 was liable to be granted to only those employees who were appointed in regular pay scale and not to daily wage employees. It was contended that Shankar Lal Sharma and Mohd. Ismile were granted such benefit pursuant to the judgement passed in their writ petition by this Court respectively on 4.4.1989 and 29.8.1989 and therefore petitioner cannot claim parity on that basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner rejoined and submitted that the order of this Court in the case of aforesaid two employees was that they shall be granted salary in the minimum pay scale and this 3 order was passed on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Even then the respondents granted them the benefit of bonus, apart from minimum pay scale. The case of the petitioner cannot be distinguished much less when he is admittedly shown as senior to them. Upon consideration of the arguments aforesaid, I find that the grievance of the petitioner is justified. When benefit of ad hoc bonus was granted to his juniors, there was no reason not to grant such benefit to the petitioner Lala Ram who was clearly senior to Shankar Lal Sharma and Mohd. Ismile. The judgment of High Court though may have been passed individually in the case of aforesaid two persons but if the respondents found that the petitioner was similarly situated, it was expected of them to treat him similarly rather than forcing him to approach this Court. By not doing so, they have acted arbitrarily and unreasonably. In the result, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed with direction to the respondents to 4 pay to the petitioner Lala Ram, the amount of bonus in the sum of Rs.1,411/- for the year 1992-93 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Compliance of the judgement be made within three months from the date copy of this judgement is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/