STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus KUNJI RAMAN

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 17-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
A 
v. 
KUNJI RAMAN 
[WITH VICE VERSA) 
DECEMBER 17, 1996 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL. AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
Labour Law--Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951-Rule 2(g)(h)-Rajasthan 
Service (Concession on Project) Rules, 1975-Rule 4-Public Works Depart-
C 
ment-Work charged establisfament-Service conditions-Non application of 
Rajasthan Service Rules,' 1951 and Subsidiary Rules-Whether dis~ 
criminatory-Held, Ncr-Claim of parity with employees of regular estab-
lishmen~ot justified-Equal pay for equal w.ork-Constitution of India, Art. 
39(d). 
j 
D 
Respondent along with 3 , employees working on Mahi Project filed 
a Writ Petition as benefits of house rent allowance, project allowance, leave 
encashment were not given to them on the ground that the Rajasthan 
Service (Concessions on Project) Rules, 1962 were not applicable to them 
as· they were work-charged employees. The petitioners contended that E 
persons employed as work-charged employees perform the same functions 
and discharge the same duties as workmen on the regular establishment 
and, therefore, differential treatment given to them amounted to hostile 
discrimination; that on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' workmen 
of the work charged establishment were entitled to same benefits as were 
made available to the workmen on the regular establishment and that the F 
Rajasthan Service Rules and Rajasthan Service (Concession on Project) 
Rules are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in as much as 
they deny equal treatment to the workmen of the work-charged estab· 
lishment. 
'--·--.c 
I 
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition holding that the employees G 
employed on work-charged establishments did not belong to the same class 
and were governed by different set of Rules, they could not claim parity 
with the regular establishment employees on the basis of the principle of 
equal pay for equal work and, therefore, clauses. (g), (h) and (i) or Rule 2 
of the Rajasthan Service Rules were not discriminatory and violative of H 
255 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1996) SUPP.10 S.C.R. 
A Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, it was held that project 
allowance payable under the Project Rules being compensatory in nature -
and not a source of profit to the employees, on the basis of the doctrine of 
'equal pay for equal work' compensatory allowance had to be paid to the 
work-charged employees also at the same rate at which it was being paid 
B to the employees on regular establishment. 
The High Court struck down Rules 2(b) and (d) of the 1962 Project 
Rules and Rules 4(2) and (4) of 1975 Project Rules also as violative of 
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and it was held that the Project 
Rules would, therefore, apply to all the employees working on Mahi Project 
C irrespective of whether they were permanent, temporary or work charged 
employees and declared that the petitioner and other work charged 
employees working on the Mahi Sagar Project were entitled to payment of 
project allowances in the same manner in which they were paid to the 
permanent or temporary staff working on the Project but the petitioner 
and other work charged employees shall not be entitled to any arrears and 
D that they should be paid the project allowance under the 1975 Rules from 
the date of the order. The State filed this appeal against the judgment of 
the High Court. The petitioner also filed Civil Appeal against the order of 
non payment of arrears. 
E 
The appellant State alleged that the work-charged employees had 
always been treated differently from employees on regular establishment 
and therefore, separate rules had been framed for regulating their recruit· 
ment and conditions of service; that for the employees engaged in the 
work-charged establishment of Mahi Sagar Project there. were separate 
standing others governing the terms and conditions of their service; that 
F the High Court committed a grave error in striking down Rules 2(b) and 
( d) of the Project Rules 1962 and Rule 4(2) and ( 4) of project Rules 1975. 
The question raised for consideration was whether by treating the 
work-charged employees on the Mahi Project differently from the 
G employees working on regular establishment of P.W.D. and making the 
Rajasthan Service Rules and the Project Rules inapplicable to them, the 
Government could be said to have acted in a discriminatory and arbitrary 
manner. 
Allowing the State Appeal and dismis~ing the appeal 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.