Aripaka Venkata Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 324 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 324 AP
Judgement Date : 24 January, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Aripaka Venkata Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 January, 2023

Bench: K Manmadha Rao

                                      1


          THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                 WRIT PETITION (A.T) No.780 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief: .....to issue a Writ, Order or direction to declare the action of the respondents in not granting minimum time scale to the petitioners as attached to the post of Office Subordinate or any equivalent post, in the light of Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith grant minimum time scale to the petitioners as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments and pass such other orders."

2. Heard Mr. Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned

counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader,

Services-I for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners 1 to 3

are continuing as Part Time Contingent Employees since 1995,

1991 and 1990 in the respondent department and they belong to

Backward Class community. In view of their qualifications, they

are entitled for the post of Office Subordinate on regular basis, but

the respondents are not considering their cases for regularization

on the ground that they have not fulfilled the requisite temporary

service as per G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 23.07.1997 and

G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. The petitioners have completed

more than 25 years of service, but still they were continuing on

consolidated pay. Therefore the action of the respondents is

questioned in this writ petition.

4. Per contra, the 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit

denying all material averments made in the affidavit and mainly

contended that the petitioners were appointed as Part Time

Contingent Workers and their services are being utilized for not

less than four hours per day. The duties and services of Part Time

Contingent Workers are different from those of Office Subordinates

and they cannot be equalized, as the services of Regular Office

Subordinates are governed by A.P.Last Grade Service Rules, but

the services of unskilled Part Time Contingent Workers are not

covered by those Rules and those services are purely temporarily

and only on requirement basis. Due to sufficient Office

Subordinates are not available, the petitioners were attached to

the officers during the months of August and December-2015 and

January 2016 only. As per the above duty charts, each petitioner

have attended to such duties only for not more than six days per

month. Therefore the petitioners cannot claim the terminology of

"equal work" as per Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief and same

is liable to be dismissed.

5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterated the contents urged in the writ affidavit and relied on the

Judgment of the Division Bench of Telangana High Court in "The

State of Telangana Vs. M. Krishna"1 wherein it was held as

follows:

"8. A bare perusal of the impugned order also clearly reveals that the thrust of the argument of the appellants was that the petitioners were not appointed in the regular vacancies. However, the learned Single Judge was justified in relying on the case of Jagjit Sing (Supra) and in concluding that the material issue is not whether the employee has been appointed in an irregular vacancy, but the essential question is whether the employee continues to discharge the same set of duties as has been discharged by the regular employee or not' Admittedly, the petitioners are discharging the exact same dut5ies as is being discharged by the regular employees. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was certainly justified in relying on the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) and in concluding that the petitioners would be entitled to receive the lowest of the pay scale of the regular employee."

6. The Hon'ble Telangana High Court clearly observed the

ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State

of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others"2 and given

finding as cited supra. Further the Hon'ble erstwhile High Court of

A.P also in W.P.No.37159 of 2018, dated 19.11.2018 wherein the

petitioners therein are entitled to regularization of their services in

terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 or G.O.(P).No.112,

dated 23.07.1997, they were non-suited as they were not in service

Law Finder Doc ID #1507828 = W.A.No.396 of 2019, dated 01.05.2019

(2017) 1 SCC 148

by the cut-off date prescribed in the above said G.Os., viz.,

25.11.1993.