Telangana High Court
N. Surya, Hyd 27 Othrs vs The General Superintendent, ... on 23 August, 2022
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili, N.V.Shravan Kumar
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.P. No.23096 of 2010
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar)
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari
calling for the records relating to and connected with orders passed in
O.A. No.8258 of 2007 dated 14.06.2010 on the file of the
A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and set aside the same as
being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to principle of equal pay for equal
work and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to revise the
pay of the petitioners in accordance with the revised pay scales 1999,
2003 and 2005 and further to declare that the petitioners are entitled
to monetary benefits from their respective dates of promotion to Fitter
Grade-II on par with their counter parts in the Department and other
departments as well as was given in the case of Sri S.Eshwar Prasad,
Fitter Grade-II in the N.S. Dam Maintenance Division, Hill Colony,
Nagarjunasagar.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri D.Linga Rao appearing for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and
Command Area Development appearing for the respondents and
perused the material made available on record.
3. It has been contended by the petitioners that they were initially
appointed as the Helper Grade-II with the 1st respondent and
subsequently they were promoted as Fitter Grade-II. Fitter Grade-II
AKS, J & NVSK, J
(Repairs) was shown as skilled Class-IV and the pay scale revised in
the year 1999 was Rs.4260-9250. Fitter Grade-II (Work Shop) was
shown as skilled Class-III and their pay scales, as per the revised pay
scales in the year 1999, was Rs.4370-9520, which was placed on a
higher side to that of Fitter Grade-II (Repairs) and therefore, they are
entitled to pay scale on par with the Fitter Grade-II, (Work Shop) as
skilled Class-III. Ventilating the said grievance, the petitioners have
filed O.A. No.8258 of 2007 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and
the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 14.06.2010 dismissed the
said O.A. holding that the petitioners are not entitled to claim the
scale 4370-9775. Assailing the same, petitioners have filed the
present writ petition.
4. Per contra, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents,
inter alia, it is submitted that the petitioners are working as Fitter
Grade-II (Repairs) in state garage section, and their nature of work is
repairs and replacement to motor vehicles under skilled class-IV
(L-Repairs). The petitioners are claiming their pay on par with Fitter
Grade-II working in the Engineering Department i.e. Nagarjuna Sagar
Dam Maintenance Division at item No.83 of Pay Revision Commission
Schedule 2005 of the Irrigation & Command Area Development
Department under Workshop and Construction. The Tribunal vide its
order dated 14.06.2010 had categorically held that the petitioners are
not entitled to claim the scale 4370-9775 as they are not working
under Workshop and Construction. The 1st respondent has rightly
AKS, J & NVSK, J
fixed the pay of the petitioners in the scale of Rs.2870-5470 of Revised
Pay Scale 1999, and Rs.4260-9520 in Revised Pay Scale 2005, under
skilled class-IV as per their eligibility. It is further submitted that the
scales are applicable as per nature of works of workmen and the
petitioners are working as Fitter Grade-II (Repairs) under skilled
class-IV in State Garage Motor Vehicles Repairs Sections and their
nature of work is repairs and replacement to motor vehicles and
accordingly their pay was rightly fixed. Further, comparison of
petitioners' promotion with Sri S.Eshwar Prasad, Fitter Grade-II
working in the Nagarjuna Sagar Dam Maintenance Division is not
correct as he is working in maintenance division which comes under
Workshop & Construction in the category of skilled class-III.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted
that order dated 14.06.2010 of the learned Tribunal is erroneous on
the face of the record inasmuch as the finding of the learned Tribunal
that no documents are filed to show that the petitioners were
appointed as Fitter Grade-II is contrary to the material on record.
He further contended that the learned Tribunal had ignored the
contention of equal pay for equal work and dismissed the O.A. in toto
without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.
Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing
the respondents to revise the pay of the petitioners in accordance with
revised pay scale of 2005. In support of his contentions he placed
reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
AKS, J & NVSK, J
The Chandigarh Administration and others Vs. Rajni Vali and
others1. P.Savita and others Vs. Union of India and others2.
Food Corporation of India Workers' Union Vs. Food Corporation
of India and others3. State of Karnataka and others Vs.
Karnataka State Patels Sangha and another4.
6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader has
submitted that the petitioners are working as Fitter Grade-II (Repairs)
in State Garage Section and their nature of work is repairs and
replacement to motor vehicles under skilled Class-IV (L-Repairs).
The petitioners are claiming their pay on par with Fitter Grade-II
working in the Engineering Department i.e. Nagarjuna Sagar Dam
Maintenance Division. As the petitioners do not belong to Workshop
& Construction category, they are not entitled to their claim and
therefore, the learned Tribunal had rightly dismissed the O.A. filed by
the petitioners.
7. This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the
parties is of the considered view that initially the petitioners were
appointed as Helper Grade-II and subsequently they were promoted to
Fitter Grade-II (Repairs) in State Garage I & II Section and their nature
of work is repairs and replacement of parts of motor vehicles under
skilled Class-IV, (L.Repairs). The scale of Fitter Grade-II (Repairs) was
4260-9520 and whereas the scale of Fitter Grade-II (Workshop &
2000 (1) SLR 486
AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1124
AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2178
Civil Appeal Nos.4163-4164 of 2004 and 850 of 2006, dt.08.02.2007 by the Supreme Court.
AKS, J & NVSK, J
Construction) was 4370-9775. The claim of the petitioners is that
their pay has to be fixed on par with Fitter Grade-II (Workshop &
Construction), which is categorised under the skilled class-III and
whereas the petitioners are working as Fitter Grade-II (Repairs), which
is under the skilled class-IV. The learned Tribunal in its order
observed as under:
"The application is opposed by the respondents and
the General Superintendent, PWD Workshop & Stores,
filed a counter affidavit stating that the applicants are
working in the repair section. It is stated that there is
no anomaly in fixing the pay scales and their scales
were rightly fixed. The applicants are claiming their
pay on par with Fitter Grade-II in the Engineering
Department under Item 83. For granting such a claim,
the applicants have to show that they are working as
Fitter Grade-II in Work Shops and Construction as the
respondents are contending that they are only working
in repair section.
The matter is posted today to give an opportunity to
the applicant to show that they were appointed in Work
Shops and Construction.
The learned counsel for the applicants has not filed
any documents to show that they were appointed as
Fitter Grade-II in Work Shops & Construction. So, they
are not entitled to claim the scale 4370-9775."
8. From the above, it is clear that the petitioners were given an
opportunity to show that they were appointed in Workshops and
Construction but they filed to show the same.
AKS, J & NVSK, J
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner had specifically urged
before this Court that the finding of the learned Tribunal that no
documents are filed to show that the petitioners were appointed as
Fitter Grade-II is contrary to the material on record. In this regard,
it is noticed that the petitioners have not filed any such documents
either before the learned Tribunal or before this Court. As such,
the grounds raised in the writ petition are not tenable to the extent
that the learned Tribunal has ignored the principle of equal pay for
equal work and therefore, the learned Tribunal had justified in
dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioners. The judgments cited by
the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the
present case.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side,
we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated
14.06.2010 passed in O.A. No.8258 of 2007 by the learned Tribunal
and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
AKS, J & NVSK, J
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
____________________________________
JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: -08-2022
LSK
