C.Rukmangadha Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1595 AP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI /!"é4
FRIDAY , THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH :
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

 

1.A No. 1 OF 2011 (WPMP No.30139 of 2011)
IN
WP NO: 24543 OF 2011

Between:
1. C.Rukmangadha Reddy, S/o. C.Madhava Reddy
2. B.Chenchaiah, S/o.B.Chengalrayulu
3. V.Rajendraiah, s/o.V.Siddapah
4. K.Suri babu, S/o.K.Gangaiah
5. T.Ramachandraiah, S/o.T.Guravaiah
6. N.Eswara Reddy, S/o.N.Venkat Reddy
7. K.Nagaraja Reddy, S/o.K.Markonda Reddy
8. J.Gunasekhar Reddy, S/o.J.subramanyam Reddy
9. K.Harikrishna, S/o.C.Krishnaiah Mestri
10.N.Jyothi Reddy, S/o.N.Krishna Reddy
41.T.Munaiah, S/o.T.Sankaraiah
...Petitioners
(Petitioners in WP 24543 OF 2011
on the file of High Court)
AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its PRincipal Secretary, to Government,
Revenue (Endowments-lil) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad
2. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams,rep.by its, Executive officer, Tirupati, chittoor
District
3. The Deputy Director (AH) S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala, Tirumala Tirupati
Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Chittoor District
...Respondents
(Respondents in-do-)
Counsel for the Petitioner :SR! A. VENKATARAMANA
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3:SRI A. SUMANTH (SC FOR TTD)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the
respondents to extend the minimum time scale to the petitioners as wad done in the
case of similarly placed persons vide proceedings Roc.No.C1-114/SVGS/2008 dated
49.9.2008 issued by the 3 respondent, pending disposal of WP No. 24543 of 2011,
on the file of the High Court.

The court while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein to
show cause as to why this application should not be complied with, made the following
order.(The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of notice in the case).

ORDER:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

1.A.No.1 OF 2011 W.P.M.P.NO.30139 OF 2011 IN

- WRIT PETITION No. 24543 of 2011

WRIT PETITION No. 24543 oF AN" ©

ORDER:

This Writ Petition has been filed by 11 petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the action of the respondents in not regularizing their services and not extending the benefit of higher wages equivalent to minimum time scale as was done in the case of similarly placed persons vide proceedings in Roc.No.C1i- 114/SVGS/2008, dated 49.09.2008 issued by the 3

respondent.

2) The | petitioners also _ filed LA.No.1 of 2011 (W.P.M.P.No.30139 of 2011) seeking interim direction to the respondents {o extend the minimum time scale to the petitioners as was done in the case of similarly placed persons vide proceedings in Roc.No.C1-114/SVGS/2008, dated 19.09.2008 issued by the 3°¢ respondent and pass such other or further order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

3) Heard Sri Aka Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri A. Sumanth, learned Standing Counsel for

Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and perused the material]

available on record.

4) As per the averments in the affidavit filed by the petitioners along with the writ petition and the counter- _ affidavit filed by the respondents, it is an admitted fact that all tne Petitioners are working as Petty Contract Labourers in Sri Venkateswara Gosamrakshana Shala, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati from November, 2003 and 2004 to till date. They were engaged for the purpose of Carrying milk, Cleaning of milk cans, boiling of milk, preparation of curd, attending to bulls, ghee and butter Preparation, operating feed mill, flour mill, etc. It is also an admitted fact that they are discharging their duties from the date of their Joining till date

without any break.

5) The case of the petitioners is that the respondents in pursuance of the Resolution No.458, dated 12.11.2007, ' proceedings were issued to 73 Personnel under Roc.No.C1- 126/SVGS/2007, dated 26.12.2007 by extending higher wages equivalent to minimum time scale in Sri Venkateswara Gosamrakshana Shala, who had completed 5 years of service by that date, subject to the outcome of writ petitions filed by:

the Petty Contract Workers.

6) The TTD Board passed another Resolution No.370, dated 22.08.2008 to extend the facility of higher wages on the same terms and conditions (which were extended to 73 workers under Proceedings, dated 12.11.2007), whe had completed 5 years of service as on that date and accordingly, proceedings were issued to 10 persons under Roc.No.C1-114/SVGS/2008,

dated 19.09.2008.

7) The TTD Board passed another Resolution No.165, dated 26.05.2011 since around 8000 staff were working in TTD on contract/outsourcing -- basis, the subsequent request for consideration on EMTS basis should not be undertaken and it

has to be frozen with the present set up.

8) The case of the petitioners is that the respondents have to extend the benefit of higher wages equivalent to minimum time scale as was done in the case of similarly placed persons vide proceedings in Roc.No.C1-126/SVGS/2007, dated 26.12.2007 and proceedings in Roc.No.C1-114/SVGS/2008, dated 19.09.2008 of the 3 respondent. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Resolution No.165, dated 26.05.2011 will not come in the way to consider the case of the

petitioners, as they have completed 5 years of service prior to

the said Resolution, if their representation, dated 15.12.2010

is being considered at the relevant point of time.

9) Sri A. Sumanth, learned Standing Counsel for TTD, on instructions, submits that the representation, dated 15.12.2010 was not submitted to the respondents and it is not

available in the records.

10) He further submits that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought in the light of the TTD Board Resolution

No.165, dated 26.05.2011.

11) Having heard the submissions made by both counsel, this Court is of the opinion that this case has to be heard in detail during the course of final hearing to decide the main issue whether the claim of the petitioners has to be considered on par with the similarly placed persons as claimed by the petitioners or not. But in view of the situation under COVID-19 pandemic, this Court is not in a position to hold physical Courts, and as such, this writ petition will be heard in the

physical Courts.

12) Every employee, irrespective of the fact that whether he was employed on permanent basis or temporary basis, is ~ entitled for the same pay basing on the work/duties he has been discharging on par with the other employees working

along with him. Otherwise, it would be termed as

vv

"discriminatory" and violates Article 14 of Constitution of India. This Court has no hesitation to hold that it is nothing but exploiting the vulnerable sections of the people in the

society by the employers in our welfare State.

13) This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved, if the respondents are directed to apply the principle of "equal pay and equal work" to the petitioners, in view of the admitted fact that the petitioners are discharging the same work for the last 15 years at the foot steps of Sri Lord Venkateswaraswamy on par with other employees (who are extended higher wages equivalent to

minimum time scale in the year 2007 and 2008).

14) The opinion of this Court is fortified by the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors.', in which it

was held as extracted hereunder:

54. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the

*(2017) 1 SCC 148

principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been Summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been _ repeatedly

declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again.

55. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does. not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it

compels involuntary subjugation.

56. We would also like to extract herein Article 7, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below: -

"Article 7

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize

the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and

favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:

(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a

minimum, with:

(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in Particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work:

(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present

Covenant;

(b) Safe and healthy working conditions:

(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;

(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays."

India is a signatory to the above covenant, having ratified the same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape from the above obligation, in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the Principle of 'equal pay for equal work' constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee --- whether engaged on regular or temporary basis.

58. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding,

that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to 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.

15) For the above mentioned reasons and to follow the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India in Jagjit Singh's case (1 supra), there shall be interim direction to the respondents to pay the same wages and other benefits to the petitioners forthwith, which are being paid to the other employees, who are discharging

the same work along with the petitioners, pending disposal of

the writ petition.

Sd/-M.Suryanadha eddy

ASAP RES TRAR ITRUE COPY! SECTION OFFICER

For To

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments-ll{) Department, State of AP., iat, Hyderabad a ore Executive officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupati, chittoor i t . . .

The Deputy Director (AH) S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Chittoor District (1 to 3 by RPAD) One CC to Sri A. Venkataramana Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri A. Sumanth, Standing Counsel (SC for TTD) Two CC to GP for Endowments, High Court of A.P at Amaravati (OUT)

One spare copy

Nook wY N

TVR

DEVJ

DATED:19/03/2021

WP.No.24543 of 2011

a7 Mage