[2025:RJ-JP:5198] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5671/2003 Prem Chand Saini S/o Shri Hari Narain Saini, at present workin on the post of Electrician at Jaykaylon Section, P.W.D., Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Assistant Engineer, Jaykaylon Section, Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sharad Joshi, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 05/02/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondents to provide him the benefit of "equal pay for equal work" for the post of Electrician. 2. Contents of the petition indicate that the petitioner is discharging the work of electrician, but a less salary is being paid by the respondents in spite of taking the services of petitioner as electrician. 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner was engaged as Baildar and he was performing the duties of helper and he was not performing the work of electrician, hence under these circumstances, he was not entitled to get salary of [2025:RJ-JP:5198] (2 of 2) [CW-5671/2003] electrician as the work of Baildar, Helper and Electrician is altogether different. Counsel submits that the salary for the post of Helper was paid to the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the respondents and looking at the stand taken by the respondents in their reply which clearly indicates that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Baildar on 01.12.1984 and thereafter, he was performing the duties of Helper, but he was not performing the work of Electrician in the Department and also looking to the fact narrated in reply that the salary for the post of Helper has been paid to the petitioner and no counter/ rejoinder to the aforesaid reply has been submitted by the petitioner, it cannot be believed that the petitioner was discharging the duties of Electrician which entitles him to get equal pay for equal work. 7. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no merit and substance in this petition and accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /23