[2025:RJ-JP:37790] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3777/2008 Pushpendra Prakash Vashishtha S/o Sh. Shivcharan Lal Gaur, R/o 32/207, Pratap Nagar Housing Board Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to Government Water Resources Department (Irrigation) Secretariat Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Chief Engineer Water Resources Department (Irrigation Department) Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department Jaipur Division Jaipur. 4. The Assistant Engineer, Malrana Chord (Kanota) Water Resources Department Head Quarter, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.K. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avinash Choudhary with Mr. Divyanshu Saini on behalf of Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 16/09/2025 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for seeking directions against the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the same pay scale as was being paid to the Mistries appointed under the Rajasthan Engineering (Irrigation Branch) Subordinate Service Rules, 1967 (for short, 'the Rules of 1967') along with all consequential benefits. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was initially engaged as Work Charge employee under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Works Department (Building & Roads) Gardens, Irrigation, Public [2025:RJ-JP:37790] (2 of 4) [CW-3777/2008] Health and Engineer and Ayurved Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Rules of 1964') on 22.06.1975, thereafter, he was assigned the Semi Permanent Status w.e.f. 22.06.1977 and, later on, was declared permanent after completion of more than 8 years of service w.e.f. 22.06.1985 vide order dated 26.07.1991. After assigning the permanent status, the petitioner was being paid in the pay scale of Rs.295-500. Grievance of the petitioner is that the post of Mistri was uncadred by the State Government in the Schedule of the Rules of 1967 and, accordingly, amendment was also made in the Rajasthan Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1981 (for short, 'the Rules of 1981'), wherein existing pay scale of Mistri was shown as Rs.355- 570 which was revised under the Rules of 1981 to pay scale of Rs.490-840(7) (pay scale No.7). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the petitioner was holding the post of Mistri and was discharging the same duties, yet he was being paid salary in a lower pay scale compared to that of Mistri, who were appointed pursuant to the Rules of 1967. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the controversy in this regard has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2001 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4251/1993 (Narpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), where the question with regard to payment of pay in different pay scales to the Mistries appointed under the Rules of 1967, qua the Mistries earlier appointed under the Work Charge Rules of 1964, was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and, after examining the different Rules as well as nature of [2025:RJ-JP:37790] (3 of 4) [CW-3777/2008] work, this Court gave categorical finding that the petitioners in that case, who were initially appointed under the Work Charge Rules of 1964, were equal to the Mistries appointed under the Rules of 1967 and, therefore, whenever there was any revision of pay scale, the incumbents of both the categories were to be treated equal for the purpose of grant of pay scale and, hence, direction was given to the respondents to pay the same pay scale to the Mistries appointed under the Rules of 1964 qua the pay scale which was given to the Mistries appointed under the another set of Rules of 1967. 5. The aforesaid judgment is further been followed in the case of Dhoolji & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2184/2003) decided on 16.11.2005, where the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that the action of the Government was discriminatory and in the absence of any reasonable justification, denial of pay to Mistries, who are Members under the Rules of 1964, was unjust and improper and they are also entitled for the same pay scale which was admissible to the Mistries who were appointed under the Rules of 1967. 6. This Court has been given to understand that both the aforesaid judgments earlier delivered by the Co-ordinate Benchs of this Court attained finality and have also been complied with by the State Government. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the same terms as directed in the aforesaid judgments and hold that the petitioners shall be entitled to the same pay scale equal to the Mistries appointed under the Rules of 1967. The petitioner shall [2025:RJ-JP:37790] (4 of 4) [CW-3777/2008] also be entitled to the benefit of the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1981, further revised from time to time along with all consequential benefits including arrears of difference of salary. Necessary exercise shall be undertaken and the arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 8. Ordered accordingly. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/18