Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

N. Lakshmana Rao, E.G. District Amp 9 Ots vs Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy, ... on 30 August, 2024

APHC010022912010

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3457]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

              FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
                TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
                      WRIT PETITION NO: 8760/2010
Between:
N. Lakshmana Rao, E.g. District Amp 9 Ots and       ...PETITIONER(S)
Others
                                 AND
Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy E G       ...RESPONDENT(S)
Dist Ano and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
   1. Sri. E.Sambasiva Pratap
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
   1. Sri.T BALAJI


The Court made the following:
                                   //2//

                                                           WP.No.8760 of 2010

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N

                  WRIT PETITION No.8760 of 2010
ORDER :

The 1st petitioner was working in the Prasadam Section from the

year 1987, the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 were working in Prasadam

Section from the year 1990, the 5th petitioner was working from

the year 1991 onwards, the petitioners 6, 7, 8 and 10 were

working from the year 1996 and the 9th petitioner was working

from the year 1993. All the petitioners were working in the

Prasadam Section of the respondent/temple. The petitioners are

seeking extension of similar benefit as was extended to some of

the other employees in accordance with Rc.No.A1/2157/1997,

dated 15.10.1999.

2. The contract employees of the respondent/temple filed

WP.No.13450, 13592 of 1991 and WP.No.25740 of 1998 seeking

regularization of their services, when there was a proposal to

disengage them. The writ petitions were allowed directing the

respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners therein for

grant of regular pay scale and to treat the petitioners therein as

regular NMR workers right from the day of their initial engagement

without reference to their subsequent engagement from the year

1991 as Contract Labour.

//3//

3. The petitioners claim that they are Seniors to the other employees

who filed WP.No.13450, 13592 of 1991 and WP.No.25740 of

1998. The petitioners also filed WP.No.13268 of 2010 and this

Court vide orders dated 24.07.2000 disposed off the writ petition

by directing the respondents to extend similar benefit as was

extended to the petitioners in WP.No.13450 of 1991 and batch.

4. The petitioners made representation to the respondents for

regularization of their services. The respondents passed orders

dated 05.09.2000 and the services of the petitioners were

regularized on consolidated amount of Rs.1500/- per month. The

consolidated pay of Rs.1500/- was extended to Rs.3850/- per

month in July, 2008. The respondents paid the enhanced

consolidated pay till December, 2009. Thereafter, the 1st

respondent stopped paying the amounts to the petitioners.

5. The petitioners received notice dated 10.02.2010 calling for

explanation as to why the enhanced wages ought not to be

cancelled. The petitioners submitted their explanation, however,

the 1st respondent cancelled the enhanced consolidated pay and

engaged the petitioners on commission basis. The petitioners are

challenging such engagement issued vide proceedings dated

10.02.2010.

//4//

6. The respondents in their counter submit that the petitioners are

working on commission basis and were initially paid Rs.0.10 ps

per packet of Prasadam and on request of the workers the

Devastanam has enhanced the commission from Rs.0.10 ps to

Rs. 0.15 ps per packet. It is submitted that the petitioners were

engaged on commission basis and as such they cannot claim

parity with the petitioners who filed WP.No.13450 of 1991 and

batch. It is also submitted that this Court in WP.No.13628 of 2008

filed by the petitioners disposed the writ petition at the admission

stage. It is submitted that had the respondents had been granted

an opportunity in submitting the relevant facts this Court would

have also considered the stand point of the respondents at the

time of considering the petition on merits. It is submitted that on

the representation of the petitioners that they are similarly placed

as the contract employees who filed WP.No.13450 of 1991 and

batch, the Executive Officer issued erroneous proceedings dated

05.09.2000 extending consolidated pay of Rs.1500/- per month. It

is also submitted that the said proceedings required approval of

the 2nd respondent. The subsequent enhancement of consolidated

pay was also without approval of the 2nd respondent and the

consolidated pay was paid from and out of the commission.

//5//

7. The respondents in their additional affidavit submit that the service

of the petitioners cannot be regularized as the Government

prohibited recruitment of administrative staff in Hindu religious and

Endowment Institutions by GORt.No.1997, dt.18.10.2005.

8. It is also submitted that this Court on 01.07.2013 directed the

respondents to submit the entire file relating to initial appointment

of the petitioners on contract basis. There were no initial

appointment orders issued to the petitioners and all payments

were made on commission basis. The said facts were placed

before this Court by way of an additional counter affidavit.

9. The petitioners have filed the reply to the counter and additional

counter. The petitioners claim that the respondents have exhibited

irrationality in so far as the petitioners are concerned when

compared to the petitioners who were extended the benefit of

regularization by virtue of the orders passed by this Court in

WP.No.13450 of 1991 and batch.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following

judgments Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs.

Umadevi and others1, State of Karnataka and others Vs.

M.L.Kesari and others2, State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit

Appeal (Civil) 3595-3612 of 1999

//6//

Singh and others3, and also relied upon the order of this Court

in WP.No.15219 of 2020.

11. The law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of

Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others (supra1), held that

steps to taken for regularization under one time measure. The

services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for 10

years or more in duly sanctioned posts, but not under cover of

orders of Court or of Tribunals and further ensure that regular

recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts

that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees

or daily wagers are being never employed. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court also made it clear that any regularization if already made

need not be re-opened.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the

petitioners as they were already regularized and that there was no

revisiting their orders of regularization.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs.

Jagjit Singh and others (supra3), wherein at para 57, it was held as

follows ;

//7//

57.. 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 our determination is, whether the concerned employees (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 paragraph 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 concerned temporary employees 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 paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post.

14. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Avinash

Chand and others Vs. Chairman Market Committee and

others4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the auctioneers

engaged by the Board of Market Committees cannot be treated as

employees.

[2010] 7 S.C.R. 1173 //8//

15. As seen from the pleadings and the documents submitted along

with the writ petition, the petitioners have not submitted any

document to establish their initial engagement. This Court while

admitting the writ petition had granted interim directions on

18.06.2010 not to discontinue the service of the petitioners during

pendency of the writ petition.