Telangana High Court
Shaik Latheef vs State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 8208 of 2020
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a Writ
of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not
paying the minimum time scale of pay attached to the post in
which the petitioners are working, as illegal, arbitrary and
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and
as contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the
minimum time scale of pay attached to the post as revised
from time to time in which the petitioners are working from
the date of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and to
pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the petitioners are all working in Kasturba
Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV in short) and Residential
Bridge Schools (RBS in short), which are under the direct
control of Samagra Shiksha, Telangana. The KGBV scheme
TMD,J
was started by the Government of India in August, 2004 for
setting up of residential schools for girls belonging to
minorities and other categories and for dropouts in
educationally backward areas of the country. The objective
was to ensure access to quality education to girls from
disadvantaged groups. These schools have been brought
under Samagra Shiksha, which is a centrally sponsored
scheme implemented by the Government of India, in
partnership with the respective State Governments. Similarly,
the Urban Residential Schools, which are meant for urban
deprived children or street children and other special
category children, were started in the year 2010 and the
same were renamed as Residential Bridge Schools (RBS). The
Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, exercises overall control
over these institutions including monitoring and supervision.
It is submitted that the Concerned District Educational
Officer was the competent authority at the district level and
he is the defacto District Project Officer. It is submitted that
under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan now renamed as Samagra
Shiksha, it has been set up as a society with 60% of the
funding by the Central Government and 40% by the
TMD,J
respective State Governments. It is submitted that the
administrative decisions in this regard are taken by the
respective State Governments and that the administrative,
academic, financial guidelines were communicated by the
Commissioner, Director of School Education, who was also
ex-officio State Project Director of Samagra Shiksha and
therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the Samagra Shiksha as well as KGBV and RBS fall within
the description of 'State' as enumerated in Article 12 of the
Constitution of India and are therefore amenable to writ
jurisdiction of this Court.
3. It is submitted that all the petitioners are working
in KGBV and some of them have been subsequently
transferred to RBS. It is submitted that though they have
been rendering services for more than 7 to 8 years in various
capacities in the schools, they are not being paid salaries on
par with the other Government employees. It is submitted
that the petitioners are being paid on a consolidated basis
though they are performing similar duties and functions as
discharged by the permanent employees of the Government.
TMD,J
The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others 1,
to submit that on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work',
the petitioners are entitled for minimum of time scale of pay
as prescribed by the Pay Revision Committee as revised from
time to time and therefore, the present writ petition has been
filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the
attention of this Court to the various documents filed along
with the writ petition to demonstrate that the petitioners have
been selected after undergoing a recruitment process and
that they have been appointed on a consolidated payment
basis and that their services are being continued with
artificial breaks in between. Therefore, according to the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners should be
considered as a regular employees of KGBV and RBS and
regular pay scales should be allowed to them.
1 AIR 2016 SC 5176
TMD,J
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, further
placed reliance upon the G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 18.06.2021
issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the
Government of Andhra Pradesh, has extended the minimum
of time scale of pay to the contractual employees working in
various Government Departments, Universities, Societies,
KGBV and Model school in the revised pay scales, 2015 of the
relevant posts, in which the employees were working subject
to certain conditions. It is submitted that the some of the
beneficiaries therein were also working in KGBV's and
therefore, the Samagra Shiksha which is working under the
control of Government of Telangana, also should be directed
to extend similar benefit to the petitioners herein.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer
and Others 2, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
reiterated that the issue of regularization is different from the
payment of minimum of pay scales and has further held that
2 AIR 2019 SC 220
TMD,J
even temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay
scales as long as they continue in service. Further, he
referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Jagjit Singh, wherein the concept of 'equal pay for equal work'
has been explained in detail and it was held that where the
duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary
employees are the same as are being discharged by regular
employees, then the temporary employees are also entitled to
the similar payment as was being paid to the regular
employees.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed
reliance upon the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
W.P.Nos.27799, 26030 & 20360 of 2022, wherein the similar
employees of KGBV working on contract basis have
approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court and after
considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Jagjit Singh, the Court has held that an employee
engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another
who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Therefore,
the Court has held that the petitioners therein are entitled to
TMD,J
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. The learned counsel for the
petitioners, therefore submitted that the similar relief should
be granted to the petitioners herein also.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
relied upon the averments made in their respective counter
affidavit filed along with the stay vacate petitions and
submitted that the Samagra Shiksha is a society and is being
funded by the Central and State Governments and that the
petitioners herein are all engaged by the Samagra Shiksha to
work as a contract employees on payment of a consolidated
sum. It is submitted that all the petitioners are contractual
employees and they are bound by the contract agreements. It
is submitted that it is not true that the payment of the
petitioners has been stagnated and that they are not being
paid at enhanced rates. The learned standing counsel for the
respondent No.2 has placed before this Court copies of the
G.O.Rt.No.144, dated 31.08.2017, G.O.Rt.No.60, dated
11.06.2021, G.O.Rt.No.63, dated 15.06.2021 and
TMD,J
G.O.Rt.No.117, dated 27.11.2021, to demonstrate that
honorarium being paid to the persons engaged on contract
basis by Samagra Shiksha, has been enhanced from time to
time. Therefore, according to the learned standing counsel,
there is no differential treatment in this case. It is submitted
that all the persons who are working under Samagra Shiksha
are only contract employees and there are no regular
employees and therefore, the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh would not
apply. She submitted that there is no discrimination against
the petitioners herein with any other employees of Samagra
Shiksha.
9. Learned Government Pleader for services, also
supported the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2
and has also referred to the averments made in the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government where it is
clearly stated that there are no regular sanctioned posts in
the project and all the persons are engaged on contract basis
with fixed monthly honorarium as per the agreement. It is
stated that the scheme has been introduced to implement the
TMD,J
provisions of Right to Education Act and to provide free and
compulsory education to the children under the age group of
six to fourteen years and basing on the estimates of
expenditure of the State in terms of Section 7(2) of the RTE
Act, the same are approved by the Project Approval Board
(Central) based on their work plan and budget and as per the
programmatic and of financial norms of the scheme, the
shares of both the Central and State are included and the
approved expenditure of proportion in the ratio of 60:40.
Therefore, according to him, the writ petition is devoid of
merits and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other
hand, filed a reply affidavit and also relied upon the order of
the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.396/2019,
wherein the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been reiterated.
11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that the petitioners are
all working on a contract basis in KGBV's & RBS's and they
are working in different capacities and admittedly they are
TMD,J
working from more than 7 to 8 years. However, it is noticed
that the Samagra Shiksha i.e., respondent No.2 is a society
and it is funded by the Central and State Governments in the
ratio of 60:40. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners should be paid on par with the
regular employees, the counsel has not been able to bring out
any instances of regular appointments by the respondent
organization. Admittedly, all the employees are working on
contract basis and are being paid monthly honorarium and it
is being enhanced from time to time. The principle laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh
(cited supra), of equal pay for equal work would apply only
when in one single organization, there is a differential
treatment between regular employees and the temporary
employees. However, the said principle would not apply to the
case on hand because there are no regular employees in this
organization and all the employees are admittedly temporary
employees engaged on contract basis and therefore, there is
no case of discrimination between the employees.
TMD,J
12. The Samagra Shiksha has been set up by the
Government of India and the Government Telangana.
Therefore, it is the prerogative of the employers to decide on
the payment of salary or honorarium to its employees. It
would be a policy decision of the Government and this Court
under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot interfere in
such matters and therefore, this Court does not see any merit
in this writ petition. As far as they reliance upon the
G.O.Rt.No.40, dated 18.06.2021 issued by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh is concerned, this Court finds that it is the
Government of Andhra Pradesh, which has issued the said
G.O. and not by Samagra Shiksha. The Government of
Telangana cannot be directed to follow the policy adopted by
the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The said Government
Order of Andhra Pradesh has extended a minimum time scale
of pay to all the contractual and temporary employees in
various organizations including KGBV's and RBS's. This
order of this Court dismissing the writ petition will not
however, come in the way of the petitioners making a
representation to the Government of Telangana for relief and
the Government of Telangana may consider such
TMD,J
representation, if so made in accordance with the law and
without being influenced by any of the above observations.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 03.06.2024
bak
