STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus KUNJI RAMAN

STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus KUNJI RAMAN

Work-charged and regular establishment employees constitute two distinct classes; separate rules and non-applicability of Rajasthan Service Rules and Project Rules to work-charged employees is not discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 16; project allowance in pay scales of work-charged employees already provided; parity in benefits with regular employees is not justified.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: State of Rajasthan; Respondent/appellant: Kunji Raman; Petitioner (in Writ): 36 other employees of Mahi Project
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 December 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Decision
Outcome
State appeal allowed; workmen appeal dismissed; judgment of High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Service Rules, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Discrimination Under Articles 14 and 16, Work Charged Establishment Vs Regular Establishment
Labour Law Constitutional Law Service Rules Equal Pay for Equal Work Discrimination Under Articles 14 and 16 Work Charged Establishment Vs Regular Establishment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Rajasthan

Appellant/respondent

Kunji Raman

Respondent/appellant

36 other employees of Mahi Project

Petitioner (in Writ)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of work-charged employees from Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and Project Rules, 1962 & 1975 is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether work-charged employees are entitled to parity in pay and allowances with regular establishment employees under 'equal pay for equal work'.
  3. 3 Whether project allowances should be paid to work-charged employees on Mahi Project.

Ratio Decidendi

Work-charged and regular establishment employees constitute two distinct classes; separate rules and non-applicability of Rajasthan Service Rules and Project Rules to work-charged employees is not discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 and 16; project allowance in pay scales of work-charged employees already provided; parity in benefits with regular employees is not justified.

Court Disposition

State appeal allowed; workmen appeal dismissed; judgment of High Court set aside.

Orders

  • Rules 2(b) and (d) of the Project Rules, 1962 and Rules 4(2) and (4) of the 1975 Project Rules are not violative of Articles 14 and 16; work-charged employees not entitled to parity with regular establishment employees; workmen not entitled to arrears or additional benefits; no order as to costs.