Pottenala Krishna Veni vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8590 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
         MAIN CASE: W.P.Nos. 22474, 5856,1597, 2710, 8577
         of 2022 and 19742, 19746, 19756, 19817, 20209,
         20896, 21358, 23192, 23719, 23800, 24444, 27187,
         28271, 30615, 30708 and 31017 of 2021
                        PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.                                                                OFFICE
        DATE                         ORDER
No.                                                                NOTE.
05.   09.11.2022   GRKP, J

                         W.P.No.22474 of 2022
                      Heard Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, Learned
                   Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Subbarao
                   korrapati,   Learned    Counsel    for   the
                   Petitioners, Ms.Sindhu Kumari, Learned
                   Standing for TTD and Government Pleader
                   for Endowments.
                         2.     Learned Senior Counsel has
                   brought to the Notice of this Court that this
                   Court, on the earlier occasion i.e., on
                   22.09.2021 in W.P.No.19742 of 2021 had
                   passed an Interim Order directing the
                   Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, to follow

the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, on the condition that the Petitioners fulfill all requirements therein, so as to be entitled for Minimum Time Scale. It was also directed that status-quo existing as on the said date as regards the Services of the Petitioners to be maintained. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Writ Petition No.19742 of 2021 is also pending on the file of this Court and is listed today.

3. It transpires from the Record and from the Prayer of the present Writ Petition that despite the Interim Order of this Court dated 22.09.2021, the Official Respondents have passed an Order on 14.02.2022 (Ex.P5), bearing Proceedings Roc.No.TTD- 11021(91)/7/2021-IT-TTD to the effect that the present Petitioners are not entitled for Minimum Time Scale and other allowances attached to the same on the ground that there is no Employer and Employee relationship between the TTD and the Petitioners. It is this Order, which is presently under challenge in the Writ Petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraphs 58 and 60 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh in 2017 (1) SCC 148, which are usefully extracted hereunder:

"58. 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. Anyone, 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 dependants 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.

59. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work", in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires out determination is, whether the employees concerned (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by regular employees holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" summarized by us in para 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted that during the course of their employment, the temporary employees concerned were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities which at some point in time were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts were also posted to discharge the same work which was assigned to temporary employees from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity on any of the principles summarized by us in para 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post."

5. The above extract of the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court clearly indicates that the categories of employment recognized thereunder would be entitled for Time Scale and other benefits so long as their services are utilized by the Respondent Employer and in this case, the TTD (Respondent No.2).

6. In this view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to suspend the Order dated 14.02.2022, bearing Roc.No. TTD-11021(91)/7/2021-IT-TTD, till the next date of listing.

7. It transpires from the Record that in some of the Writ Petitions, the Counters are yet to be filed by the Respondents.

8. Let all pleadings be complete within four (04) weeks from today including the filing of the Counters as well as Rejoinder, if any.

9. Till such time, the Interim Orders passed in this Batch of Writ Petitions shall continue till the next date.

10. List the matter on 15.12.2022, for final hearing.

____________ GRKP, J

GPJ