1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 997/2006 Jawanmal & Others Vs. Chief Manager (P&A), Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. & Ors. ......... Date of Order : 06/02/2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. B.N.Kalla, for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Bhandari for the respondents. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay incentive as are being paid to the workmen of the respondents Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. (for short “RSMML” hereinafter) under the Scheme approved as a part of long term agreement with the Union of the workmen and the respondent employer. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been sent on deputation by the Police Department to the respondent RSMML and the respondent RSMML has been paying the incentive to the persons/ workmen of the RSMML as per Scheme approved as a part of long term agreement and therefore, denying the incentive to the petitioners who are on deputation amounts to discrimination amongst equals. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents stating therein that the petitioners were on deputation with the respondent RSMML, however, the petitioners are employees of the State Government holding the post of Constable and Head Constable. They were initially sent on deputation to RSMML, however, their parent department i.e. Police Department has recalled them and thereupon they have been repatriated to the parent department i.e. Police Department and as such they are not on the rolls of the RSMML. It has further been stated that so far as cases of Harphool Singh and Dy. S.P. Dilip Singh are concerned, the Board of Management have decided to give them incentive bonus since they have been discharging the work of Financial Adviser and therefore, the cases of Harphool Singh and Dy. S.P. Dilip Singh 3 are not at par with that of the petitioners. Along with the reply Annex.R/2 has been placed on record by which the petitioners have been paid the deputation allowance. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners are not entitled for any allowance except the deputation allowance while they were on deputation with the respondent RSMML. The respondents very specifically came with a case that the petitioners cannot be equated with the workmen of the RSMML who are beneficiaries of the incentive as per the Scheme approved as a part of long term agreement with the Union and the employer, whereas the petitioners have been on deputation and since they have been recalled by their parent department and have been repatriated and therefore, they are not entitled for any incentive except the deputation allowance which has been paid to them vide Annex.R/2. In my view, the petitioners cannot claim equivalence for the purpose of entitling them for incentive with the workmen regularly employed by the respondent RSMML under the approved Scheme as a part of long term agreement with the Union of the workmen and the respondent employer. So far as the entitlement of the petitioners for the deputation allowance is concerned, it has already been paid and has not been disputed. Similar controversy came to be considered by this Court in Triloki 4 Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. SBCW No.6345/06 decided on 18.11.2008. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp