HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15418/2018 Rajasthan Janta Jal Karamchari Sangh, Jaipur, Through President, Ramdev Raigar S/o Shri Trilok Chand Raigar, aged about 46 Years, R/o Village and Post Labana Via Achrol, Tehsil Achrol, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghunandan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Divya Rathore Mr. Ashutosh Udawat Mr. Prateek Saxena for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur-AAG JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/02/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing a direction to the respondents to make the payment of salary/wages of actual working days to the members (workers) of petitioner-Union. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the members (workers) of the petitioner-Union are working on the post of Pump Drivers and the respondents are taking work for thirty days in every month but the payment of wages of only twenty six days are being made to the petitioner-Union. Counsel submits that the (2 of 3) [CW-15418/2018] petitioner-Union is entitled to get wages of all thirty working days. Hence, under these circumstances, appropriate orders/directions be issued to the respondents in this regard. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents oppose the prayer and submits that no such order/direction has been received from the State Authority for making the payment of wages for thirty days to the petitioner-Union. Counsel submits that the payment of wages for twenty six days is regularly made to the petitioner- Union but the petitioner-Union is working for thirty days as per their own wishes and desires. Hence under these circumstances, petitioner-Union is not entitled to get additional wages of four days and thus interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This fact is not in dispute by the State, neither in the reply nor during the course of arguments, that the work for thirty days is being taken from the members of the petitioner-Union. The only reason for justifying payment of twenty six days is that an order has been passed by the State Authority in this regard. This Court finds no valid justification in the aforesaid stand taken by the State. If the State is willing to take thirty days work from the petitioner-Union, then the State is supposed to make payment of wages of thirty working days and in case, the respondents are of the view that the petitioner-Union is entitled to get payment for twenty six days then the respondents should take the work from the petitioner-Union for twenty six days only. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (3 of 3) [CW-15418/2018] 7. Stay application and other application (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/90