Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

T. Vijaya Kumar vs The Commissioner Of Collegiate Edn., on 5 September, 2024

APHC010018872004
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI
                                                          [3457]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

             THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
               TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

                       WRIT PETITION NO: 3743/2004

BETWEEN:
T. VIJAYA KUMAR AND OTHERS                      ...PETITIONER(S)

                                  AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE                 ...RESPONDENT(S)

EDN AND OTHERS

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER(S):

1. V R REDDY KOVVURI

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT(S):

1. GP FOR EDUCATION

2. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

3. Y VENKATESH REDDY

4. S R ASHOK

The Court made the following Order:

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioners are working as part-time lecturers without a regular scale

of pay, though the petitioners are discharging their duties as regular

lecturers. The 1st and 2nd petitioners were appointed as part-time

lecturers in the Departments of Commerce and Zoology during the

HN, J W.P.No.3743_2004

years 1997-98. The 3rd petitioner was appointed as part-time

lecturer in the year 1998-99 and the 4th petitioner was appointed as

part-time lecturer in the year 1999-2000. The petitioners have been

working in the 3rd respondent-College, which is an aided college.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that

the petitioners are discharging the role of regular lecturers though

their services are on a part-time basis. It is also submitted that the

petitioners are working more than eighteen hours per, the same as

regular lecturers. The part-time remuneration due to the petitioners

for the academic years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01,

2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 has not been paid, even though the bills

were sent by the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent seeking

sanction of amounts. However, the 1st respondent has not

considered the request of the 3rd respondent. The petitioners have

filed the writ petitions seeking regularization of their services, which

are pending. The 4th respondent issued cheques for meager

amounts to the petitioners towards the payment of part-time

remuneration. The petitioners submitted a representation to the 4th

respondent seeking the amounts due to them. It is submitted that

HN, J W.P.No.3743_2004

all the petitioners are working continuously however, they are paid

only meager amounts.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter

relating to the regularization on part-time lecturers was referred to a

full bench and W.P.No.27295 of 1998 and the batch were referred

to the full bench for consideration. The leaned counsel further

submits that the present writ petition is confined to seeking time

scale pay for the petitioners as they have been continuously

working and discharging the role of regular lecturers since the

beginning of their engagement on a part-time basis.

4. No counter is placed on record, though the writ petition was

filed in the year 2004. The full bench dismissed the writ petitions

vide order dated 09.11.2009, following the principles laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.Manjula Bhasini v. MD.

A.P.Women's Co-operative Finance Corpn.Ltd1. Insofar as the

claim of the petitioners for extension of time scale of a regular

lecturer is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies

2009 (5) ALD 58(SC)

HN, J W.P.No.3743_2004

on State of Punjab and others v. Jagjit Singh and others2, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 56 to 60 held as follows:

"56. We shall now deal with the claim of temporary employees before this Court.

57. 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 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.

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. 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,

(2017) 1 SCC

HN, J W.P.No.3743_2004 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.

59. 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

HN, J W.P.No.3743_2004 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.

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 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

HN, J W.P.No.3743_2004 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".

5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioners and after hearing the learned Government Pleader for

the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioners are entitled to the extension of time scale. The

respondents are hereby directed to extend the time scale to the

petitioners by following the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 05.09.2024 NKA

HN, J W.P.No.3743_2004