Telangana High Court
Shaik Latheef vs State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 8208 of 2020
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the minimum time scale of pay attached to the post in which the petitioners are working, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the minimum time scale of pay attached to the post as revised from time to time in which the petitioners are working from the date of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioners are all working in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV in short) and Residential Bridge Schools (RBS in short), which are under the direct control of Samagra Shiksha, Telangana. The KGBV scheme 2 TMD,J W.P.No. 8208 of 2020 was started by the Government of India in August, 2004 for setting up of residential schools for girls belonging to minorities and other categories and for dropouts in educationally backward areas of the country. The objective was to ensure access to quality education to girls from disadvantaged groups. These schools have been brought under Samagra Shiksha, which is a centrally sponsored scheme implemented by the Government of India, in partnership with the respective State Governments. Similarly, the Urban Residential Schools, which are meant for urban deprived children or street children and other special category children, were started in the year 2010 and the same were renamed as Residential Bridge Schools (RBS). The Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, exercises overall control over these institutions including monitoring and supervision. It is submitted that the Concerned District Educational Officer was the competent authority at the district level and he is the defacto District Project Officer. It is submitted that under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan now renamed as Samagra Shiksha, it has been set up as a society with 60% of the funding by the Central Government and 40% by the 3 TMD,J W.P.No. 8208 of 2020 respective State Governments. It is submitted that the administrative decisions in this regard are taken by the respective State Governments and that the administrative, academic, financial guidelines were communicated by the Commissioner, Director of School Education, who was also ex-officio State Project Director of Samagra Shiksha and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Samagra Shiksha as well as KGBV and RBS fall within the description of 'State' as enumerated in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and are therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.
3. It is submitted that all the petitioners are working in KGBV and some of them have been subsequently transferred to RBS. It is submitted that though they have been rendering services for more than 7 to 8 years in various capacities in the schools, they are not being paid salaries on par with the other Government employees. It is submitted that the petitioners are being paid on a consolidated basis though they are performing similar duties and functions as discharged by the permanent employees of the Government. 4
TMD,J W.P.No. 8208 of 2020 The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others 1, to submit that on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', the petitioners are entitled for minimum of time scale of pay as prescribed by the Pay Revision Committee as revised from time to time and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the various documents filed along with the writ petition to demonstrate that the petitioners have been selected after undergoing a recruitment process and that they have been appointed on a consolidated payment basis and that their services are being continued with artificial breaks in between. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners should be considered as a regular employees of KGBV and RBS and regular pay scales should be allowed to them. 1 AIR 2016 SC 5176 5 TMD,J W.P.No. 8208 of 2020
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, further placed reliance upon the G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 18.06.2021 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Government of Andhra Pradesh, has extended the minimum of time scale of pay to the contractual employees working in various Government Departments, Universities, Societies, KGBV and Model school in the revised pay scales, 2015 of the relevant posts, in which the employees were working subject to certain conditions. It is submitted that the some of the beneficiaries therein were also working in KGBV's and therefore, the Samagra Shiksha which is working under the control of Government of Telangana, also should be directed to extend similar benefit to the petitioners herein.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Others 2, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the issue of regularization is different from the payment of minimum of pay scales and has further held that 2 AIR 2019 SC 220 6 TMD,J W.P.No. 8208 of 2020 even temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service. Further, he referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh, wherein the concept of 'equal pay for equal work' has been explained in detail and it was held that where the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees are the same as are being discharged by regular employees, then the temporary employees are also entitled to the similar payment as was being paid to the regular employees.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.Nos.27799, 26030 & 20360 of 2022, wherein the similar employees of KGBV working on contract basis have approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court and after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh, the Court has held that an employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Therefore, the Court has held that the petitioners therein are entitled to 7 TMD,J W.P.No. 8208 of 2020 draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore submitted that the similar relief should be granted to the petitioners herein also.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the averments made in their respective counter affidavit filed along with the stay vacate petitions and submitted that the Samagra Shiksha is a society and is being funded by the Central and State Governments and that the petitioners herein are all engaged by the Samagra Shiksha to work as a contract employees on payment of a consolidated sum. It is submitted that all the petitioners are contractual employees and they are bound by the contract agreements. It is submitted that it is not true that the payment of the petitioners has been stagnated and that they are not being paid at enhanced rates. The learned standing counsel for the respondent No.2 has placed before this Court copies of the G.O.Rt.No.144, dated 31.08.2017, G.O.Rt.No.60, dated 11.06.2021, G.O.Rt.No.63, dated 15.06.2021 and 8 TMD,J W.P.No. 8208 of 2020 G.O.Rt.No.117, dated 27.11.2021, to demonstrate that honorarium being paid to the persons engaged on contract basis by Samagra Shiksha, has been enhanced from time to time. Therefore, according to the learned standing counsel, there is no differential treatment in this case. It is submitted that all the persons who are working under Samagra Shiksha are only contract employees and there are no regular employees and therefore, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh would not apply. She submitted that there is no discrimination against the petitioners herein with any other employees of Samagra Shiksha.
9. Learned Government Pleader for services, also supported the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 and has also referred to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government where it is clearly stated that there are no regular sanctioned posts in the project and all the persons are engaged on contract basis with fixed monthly honorarium as per the agreement. It is stated that the scheme has been introduced to implement the 9 TMD,J W.P.No. 8208 of 2020 provisions of Right to Education Act and to provide free and compulsory education to the children under the age group of six to fourteen years and basing on the estimates of expenditure of the State in terms of Section 7(2) of the RTE Act, the same are approved by the Project Approval Board (Central) based on their work plan and budget and as per the programmatic and of financial norms of the scheme, the shares of both the Central and State are included and the approved expenditure of proportion in the ratio of 60:40. Therefore, according to him, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, filed a reply affidavit and also relied upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.396/2019, wherein the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated.
11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioners are all working on a contract basis in KGBV's & RBS's and they are working in different capacities and admittedly they are 10 TMD,J W.P.No. 8208 of 2020 working from more than 7 to 8 years. However, it is noticed that the Samagra Shiksha i.e., respondent No.2 is a society and it is funded by the Central and State Governments in the ratio of 60:40. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners should be paid on par with the regular employees, the counsel has not been able to bring out any instances of regular appointments by the respondent organization. Admittedly, all the employees are working on contract basis and are being paid monthly honorarium and it is being enhanced from time to time. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (cited supra), of equal pay for equal work would apply only when in one single organization, there is a differential treatment between regular employees and the temporary employees. However, the said principle would not apply to the case on hand because there are no regular employees in this organization and all the employees are admittedly temporary employees engaged on contract basis and therefore, there is no case of discrimination between the employees. 11
TMD,J W.P.No. 8208 of 2020
12. The Samagra Shiksha has been set up by the Government of India and the Government Telangana. Therefore, it is the prerogative of the employers to decide on the payment of salary or honorarium to its employees. It would be a policy decision of the Government and this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot interfere in such matters and therefore, this Court does not see any merit in this writ petition. As far as they reliance upon the G.O.Rt.No.40, dated 18.06.2021 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, this Court finds that it is the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which has issued the said G.O. and not by Samagra Shiksha. The Government of Telangana cannot be directed to follow the policy adopted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The said Government Order of Andhra Pradesh has extended a minimum time scale of pay to all the contractual and temporary employees in various organizations including KGBV's and RBS's. This order of this Court dismissing the writ petition will not however, come in the way of the petitioners making a representation to the Government of Telangana for relief and the Government of Telangana may consider such 12 TMD,J W.P.No. 8208 of 2020 representation, if so made in accordance with the law and without being influenced by any of the above observations.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 03.06.2024 bak