The Andhra Pradesh State Housing ... vs L Satyanarayana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1681 AP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                    &
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                    WRIT APPEAL No.109 of 2020

                   (Taken up through video conferencing)

The Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director,
H.No.12-52, Enikepadu,
Vijayawada, Krishna District
and another.                               ..   Appellants

                                  Versus

Lanka Satyanarayana
S/o. late Satyam,
Aged about 45 years,
r/o.D.No.2-4-51, Kothuru post,
Ramachandrapuram,
East Godavari District and 14 others.           ..      Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy represents Mr.E.V.Jagannadha Rao

Counsel for Respondents : Mr.K.R.Srinivas

ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22.03.2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel representing

Mr.E.V.Jagannadha Rao-learned counsel, appearing for the appellants.

2) Also heard Mr.K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for the

respondents.

3) Challenging the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the

learned single Judge in W.P.No.279 of 2019, the present appeal is

filed.

4) By the aforesaid order, the learned single Judge directed

the appellants herein to pay wages to the writ petitioners at the

minimum of the pay scales, which are applicable to the regular

employees holding the same post, with effect from 01.09.2019.

5) Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest

Officer and others, reported in 2018 Law Suits (SC) 1134,

wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that temporary

employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay

scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same

post.

6) Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel representing

Mr.E.V.Jagannadha Rao-learned counsel for the appellants, submits

that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the

present case. The writ petitioners are not temporary employees of the

appellant, but they are outsourcing employees and this aspect of the

matter had not been considered by the learned single Judge.

Mr.K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, does not

dispute the above submission.

7) In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the

learned single Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to

the learned single Judge for fresh disposal.

8) Registry to list this case before the learned single Judge

having appropriate roster, on 10.05.2021. The appellants, if so

advised, may file their counter-affidavit on or before 03.05.2021. It is

made clear that no further time will be granted for the purpose of

filing counter-affidavit on behalf of the appellants.

9) Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

GM