RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Jodhpur Region PWD [B and R] Majdoor Sangh (INTAK), Phalodi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sangh') has filed this writ petition on behalf of workmen whose names, as mentioned in the Schedule appended with the writ petition are as under: 1. Shri Kanwara Ram s/o Jiya Ram2. Shri Ranaram s/o Ghewar Ram3. Shri Ghwarram s/o Shri Bhikharam4. Smt. Ganga w/o Shri Kanwara Ram5. Shri Andaram s/o Shri Bhikharam6. Shri Bhanwara Ram s/o Shri Dungarram7. Shri Alabux s/o Ibru Khan8. Shri Nimbaram s/o Shri Sonaram9. Shri Kishna Ram s/o Koja Ram10. Shri Bhanwarlal s/o Bhinya Ram11. Shri Bhannaram s/o Girdhariram12. Shri Ganpatsingh s/o Khinvsingh13. Shri Sonaram s/o Shri Hirkanram14. Shri Natharam s/o Shri Pratapram 15. Shri Goparam s/o Shri Jiyaram16. Shri Madangopal s/o Shri I -Bux17. Shri Gopa Ram s/o Shri Nimbaram 18. Shri Ramdayal s/o Shri Suganchand19. Shri Jogsingh s/o Shri Jorshing20. Shri Mahesh Kumar s/o Purshotam21. Shri Babupuri s/o Shri Lalpuri22. Shri Bhawanishankar s/o Navnarayan
(2.) THE petitioner has approached this Court on behalf of above -mentioned persons for regularisation of their services in the department and for granting them pay in the regular pay scale obligation to pay same wages to the employees doing similar duties. If any discrimination is made between the employees doing similar duties under the same employer, the action of the employer is liable to be declared as unconstitutional unless the discrimination can be justified on some rational principle. As far as the present case is concerned as I have already, noticed, the respondents have completely failed in showing any difference in the nature of duties being performed by the employees belonging to the Irrigation Wing on the one hand and the Agriculture Wing on the other hand of the Command Area Development Department. Thus, it is held that the members of the petitioner Sangh have been subjected to discriminatory treatment and the respondents have violated their constitutional right of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by denying them the benefit of workcharge pay scale.' The Court further directed that the action of the respondents in denying workcharged pay scales to the members of the petitioner -Sangh is unlawful and un -constitutional and the respondents are directed to give benefit of workcharged pay scale in terms of Ex. 3 to the employees who are the members of the petitioner Sangh and also to other similarly situated persons. They are also directed to give benefit of Rule 3 (3) of 1964 Rules to all the employees after completion of 2 years' service by them in view of the judgment of this Court in Vinnay Kumar's case and Om Prakesh Meghwal's case (supra).''
(3.) THE decision of this Court in Vinnay Kumar's case has been reported in 1991 (1) WLR 192.;