Telangana High Court

C.Vijaya Rao vs The District Rwss Engineer, on 20 January, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

                                       1                             RRN,J
                                                                 WP No.43418 of 2017

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


                WRIT PETITION No.43418 OF 2017


ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

"...to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the minimum time scale of pay to the petitioner who is working as Non-technical Work Inspector as pert the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & others Vs. Jagit Singh and others reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148 as illegal and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, hold that the petitioner is entitled for granting minimum time scale of pay attached to the post of Non-technical Work Inspector with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass...."

2. It has been contended by the petitioner that he was

initially appointed as N.M.R Labour in Rural Water Supply and

Sanitation, Sub-Division, Sangareddy, with effect from

21.05.1988 and his services were orally terminated on

05.01.1990 without any written orders while continuing several

persons who were appointed after his appointment. He made

several representations to the respondents but in vain. Aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner filed I.D. No. 34 of 1994 before the

Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, and the Labour Court was pleased

to pass an Award on 01.12.1998 holding that the termination of 2 RRN,J WP No.43418 of 2017

the petitioner is a violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, and directed the respondents to reinstate the

petitioner into service as afresh without continuity of service and

back wages. The respondents aggrieved by the said Award, filed

a Writ Petition before this Court vide W.P No.9799 of 1999 and

this Court dismissed the same vide orders dt.05.02.2010.

Consequent to such orders, the petitioner was reinstated to duty

as a fresh NMR in Memo No.EE/RWS &

S/Division/SSPET/AB/A2/2010-11 dt.17.01.2011.

2.1 It is further contended by the petitioner that he was

later converted to as Non-technical Work Inspector on

04.02.2016. The Government in G.O.Rt.No.1542, PR&RD,

dt.29.10.2009 granted remuneration at the minimum of the time

scale of pay in RPS 2005 to the Work charged Establishment

working in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department and

several juniors to him, who joined as N.M.Rs were extended the

minimum time scale of pay vide Memo No.SO-1(3)/RWS &

S/WCE/83/08 dt.14.12.2009, but it was not extended to him.

2.2 It is further contended by the petitioner that he is

eligible and qualified to hold the present post and as such, the 3 RRN,J WP No.43418 of 2017

minimum time scale of pay ought to have extended to him even

as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State

of Punjab & others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others reported in 2017

(1) SCC 148. He made several representations to the

Government but no action has been taken. As such, the

petitioner is before this Court.

3. Respondent No.1 filed counter by contending that the

petitioner had voluntarily abandoned himself from work for the

reasons best known to him and had filed the I.D. before the

Labour Court with unclean hands and that the petitioner is not

eligible for the minimum time scale of pay as he was reinstated

into service as fresh NMR Labour from 17.01.2011 and as such,

the G.O. Rt.No. 1542, PR&RD, dt.29.10.2009 does not apply to

the petitioner. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

4. Heard Sri D. Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II

appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondents have admitted that the petitioner is working as Non-

technical Work Inspector and discharging his duties on par with 4 RRN,J WP No.43418 of 2017

other regular employees and, therefore, the petitioner is eligible

for extending the minimum time scale of pay. Accordingly,

prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for

respondents submitted that the petitioner is not eligible for

minimum time scale of pay as the petitioner was reinstated into

service as fresh NMR Labour from 17.01.2011 and as such, the

G.O. Rt.No. 1542, PR&RD., dt.29.10.2009 does not apply to him.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. The first contention of the respondents is that the

petitioner himself abandoned work from 05.01.1990 is of no avail

as this Court was not inclined to interfere with the decision of the

Labour Court and the same was not challenged by the

respondents. Since the very contention of respondents that in

terms of G.O.Rt.No.1542, PR&RD, dt.29.10.2009, the petitioner

is not entitled a minimum time scale of pay. As such, it is apt to

extract the relevant portion of said G.O.

"4. After careful examination of the proposal of Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Water Supply & Sanitation, Hyderabad, Government hereby accords sanction to allow the payment of remuneration at the rate of minimum of time Scale + D.A. i.e. {Basic + D.A.} to the 205 Non-Technical NMRs working in various Divisions in Rural 5 RRN,J WP No.43418 of 2017

Water Supply and Sanitation Department as indicated at para 2 above, from prospective date i.e. date of issue of orders, without any other benefits, subject to the condition that the Department should meet the expenditure within their budget provisions, and no additional budget/grants will be allowed and granting of minimum scale shall not confer any right for their regularization of services, and it does not confer any right to the NMRs for grant of increments or other benefits.

8. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in W.P No.

9799 of 1999 dated 05.02.2010, it is noticed that the learned

Judge observed while dismissing the writ petitions filed by the

respondents, as follows:

"It is unfortunate that the Labour Court has not extended the benefit of continuity of service in a matter of this nature and, in its wisdom, directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh recruitee, which is challenged in this writ petition."

Reading the above observation, it is clear that this

Court was not only of the view that the termination of the

petitioner was unjustified, but was also of the view that the

petitioner was eligible to be given the benefit of continuity of

service. However, it is also unfortunate that the petitioner, for

no fault of his, had to suffer without being taken into service due

to the acts of the respondents and was reinstated afresh only

upon the writ petition filed by the respondents was dismissed by

this Court. It can be understood that the observation made by 6 RRN,J WP No.43418 of 2017

this Court in W.P No. 9799 of 1999 dt.05.02.2010 would mean

that the petitioner was entitled to continuity of service. As such,

the contention of the respondents does not hold water.

9. Coming to the second contention of the respondents

that the petitioner was taken into service as fresh from the year

2011 has to fail in view of the observation made by this Court in

the above W.P. Reading the above observation, it is clear that

this Court was not only of the view that the termination of the

petitioner was unjustified, but was also of the view that the

petitioner was eligible to be given the benefit of continuity of

service. However, it is also unfortunate that the petitioner, for no

fault of his, had to suffer without being taken into service due to

the acts of the respondents, and was reinstated afresh only after

the dismissal of the Writ Petition filed by the respondents.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner

has contended that the minimum time scale of pay ought to have

been extended to the petitioner even as per the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit

Singh1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

2017 (1) SCC 148 7 RRN,J WP No.43418 of 2017

"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 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 8 RRN,J WP No.43418 of 2017

wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post.

61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay- scale (- at the lowest grade, in the regular pay- scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post.

62. Disposed of in the above terms.

11. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court in

W.P.No.26788 of 2017 dt.10.08.2017, W.A.No.396 of 2019

dt.01.05.2019, Contempt Appeal No.13 & 15 of 2020 and

W.A.No.129 of 2020 dt.08.11.2021 has taken into consideration

of the decision in the Jagjit Singh case (Supra) arrived at the

conclusion that the persons who are eligible and qualified to hold

the post and discharging the duties on par with regular

employees are entitled to grant of minimum time Scale of pay.

12. Taking into consideration of the above judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the orders of this Court stated

supra, the benefit of minimum Scale of pay would apply to the