Mahendra Singh S/o Amar Singh Tak V. Union of India through the Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India and Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Paota, Jodhpur and The Principal Chief Controller of Accounts, Central Board of Direct Taxes and Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur and The Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Training and Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

CW/12189/2017

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Mahendra Singh, a casual worker, against an order from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, which had revised the daily wages of casual workers. The petitioner sought to challenge the revision of his daily wage from Rs. 292 to Rs. 222, as per the tribunal's review application. However, the court noted that similar grievances had been previously addressed in other writ petitions and through subsequent orders that increased the daily wages for casual workers to 1/30th of the minimum pay scale of Group 'C' staff plus D.A., instead of Group 'D'. The court found that the petitioner had already received higher wages and the arrears for the period from 01.07.2008 to 31.12.2015 had been paid, thus dismissing the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802989 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6735/2014 (Vijay Singh Chauhan & ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8249/2014 (Vimal Kumar Swami & ors. Vs. U.O.I. & ors.), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 49/2013 (U.O.I. & ors. Vs. Abdul Kadar & ors.)
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL BHANDARI
• Assessee Lawyers: T C GUPTA
• Keywords: Casual Workers; Central Administrative Tribunal; Review Application; Civil Writ; Daily Wages

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D. B. Civil Writ No. 12189/2017 Mahendra Singh S/o Amar Singh Tak, aged about 41 years, R/o 95A, Abhay Nagar, Magra Punjla, Jodhpur - 342001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through the Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi - 110001. 2. Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Paota, C-Road, Jodhpur - 342010. 3. The Principal Chief Controller of Accounts, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi - 110001. 4. Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Statue Circle, B.D. Road, Jaipur - 302005. 5. The Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 6. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Udaipur - 313001. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. T.C. Gupta For Respondents : Mr. Sunil Bhandari HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 10/08/2018 NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition is preferred against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated 29.04.2014 vide which the review application filed (2 of 3) [CW-12189/2017] by the respondents was allowed and it was ordered that the Judgment dated 14.08.2012 passed in the original application directing that Rs. 292/- per day as basic pay be now read as Rs. 222/- per day as basic pay. Reply has been filed. As per the reply and as stated before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition has been filed only by one casual worker and that too while praying for quashing of the Order dated 29.04.2014 passed in a bunch of review applications, even though, no other casual worker is aggrieved of the said order as the grievance of all the casual workers already stands redressed by the respondents. Further, two writ petitions came to be filed before this Court being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6735/2014 (Vijay Singh Chauhan & ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.) and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8249/2014 (Vimal Kumar Swami & ors. Vs. U.O.I. & ors.) praying for quashing of the Order dated 29.04.2014 in RA No. 4/2014 to 43/2014 & 45/2014. However, the said writ petitions came to be dismissed vide Order dated 03.02.2016 & 07.09.2016 as rendered infructuous in view of the subsequent development in the matter as the grievance raised by the casual workers stood redressed by the respondents by subsequent orders. This Court finds itself agreeing with the learned counsel for the respondents that the subsequent development has direct bearing upon the facts of the present case. Pursuant to the Judgment dated 22.08.2013 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 49/2013 (U.O.I. & ors. Vs. Abdul Kadar & ors.) and various other connected writ petitions, an order came to be issued by the office of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajasthan on 31.12.2015 fixing the daily wages for casual workers engaged (3 of 3) [CW-12189/2017] in Rajasthan region. The Order dated 31.12.2015 came to be revised vide Order dated 24.11.2016 since there was an inadvertent mistake in the per day daily wages from 01.07.2008 to 31.12.2010. Both these orders have been placed on record as Annexure-R/3 and Annexure-R/4. We may note that as per the subsequent development, the casual workers were paid higher daily wages @ 1/30th of the minimum of the pay scale of Group ‘C’ post plus D.A. instead of @ 1/30th of the minimum of the pay scale of Group ‘D’ staff plus D.A. A perusal of these orders shows that the petitioner is now getting much higher wages. In fact, the arrears of wages to the tune of Rs. 1,82,016/- and Rs. 12,527/- for the period from 01.07.2008 to 31.12.2015 has already been paid by the respondents. As a result, even the contempt petitions filed alleging non-compliance of the earlier order of the tribunal dated 14.08.2012 which stands reviewed by the impugned order dated 29.04.2014 also came to be dismissed in view of the compliance and the grievance of the casual workers having been redressed. Thus, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner is not different from the other casual workers. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (DINESH MEHTA),J (NIRMALJIT KAUR),J Inder/20 "