Telangana High Court
K. Satish Goud vs State Of Telangana on 11 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.1931 of 2016
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to call for the records relating to F.I.R.No.308 of 2014 dated 15.12.2014 of the Station House Officer, P.S. Mangalhat, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections.379, 420, 406, 448 r/w 120-B of I.P.C and Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and quash the same.
2. Heard Mr. K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing Mr. Sai Ram, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and no further orders are required in the Writ Petition. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition as infructuous.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home takes no objection to the same.
2
5. Recording the submissions made by both the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL 11.01.2024 ESP 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL 65 W.P.No.1931 of 2016 Dated: 11.01.2024 ESP 4 In "State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjith Singh and others"
In Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013 dated 26.10.2016 The issue which arises for our consideration is, whether temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale, along with dearness allowance (as revised from time to time) on account of their performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis, against sanctioned posts. The full bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that such like temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and the regular employees were similar. However, it carved out two exceptions, and extended the minimum of the regular pay to such employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-
"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement.
(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously, with notional breaks, by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in such category of persons.
Their claim for regularization, if any, may have to be considered separately in terms of legally permissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."