Telangana High Court

A Swamy Das vs State Of Telangana on 13 March, 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

               WRIT PETITION No.15629 of 2022

  ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"... to declare Memo No.288/E1/2015 HM & FW (E1) Department, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the 1st respondent, and consequential Memo No.13186/A2/2009, dated 18.01.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent, which was communicated to the petitioner through the 3rd respondent by Memo No.778/E/2016, dated 04.03.2016 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from violating principles of natural justice and set aside the same and issue consequential directions, directing the respondents to forthwith release all monetary benefits to the petitioner by giving effect to the Proceedings No.1342/E/GAC/2005-1, dated March, 2010 issued by the 3rd respondent in pursuance of Proceedings No.16748/Accts.1/2015, dated.16.11.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent....."

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(i) The petitioner possessed a Diploma in Lab

Technician, Medical Health, from CSI Hospital, Bangalore

in the year 1971 and he was appointed as a Lab

Technician on 04.01.1983 under the jurisdiction of the 2nd

respondent. After attaining the age of superannuation, he

retired from service on 30.06.2004. In pursuance of the

representations made by the Andhra Pradesh Medical &

Laboratory Technicians' Association on 01.09.1984 as well

as Andhra Pradesh N.G.Os Association on 03.02.1984, the

Government issued G.O.Ms.No.143 M & H Dept. dated

26.02.1985 revising the pay scales of Lab Technicians

Grade-l, and Grade II notional with effect from 01.04.1978

with monetary benefits from the date of issuing of the

orders.

(ii) At the time of issuing the aforesaid GO Ms

No.143 and prior to the petitioner's retirement, he was

getting a pay scale of 450-700 i.e., scale of Laboratory

Technician, Grade-II and the same was revised to 500-800

and in view of the fact that the said revised pay scales were

based on the revised pay scale recommendation

effected/initiated with effect from 01.04.1998. Thereafter,

the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 16.11.2005

for refixation of the pay of the petitioner, stating as

follows :-

"........ the matter has been examined in detailed with reference to the orders issued vide this office proceedings 1st cited, the request of the individual is concerned and hereby ordered that Sri A.Swamy Das (Retd.) Lab Technician, Dr. BRKR Govt. Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad, who was appointed as Lab Technician and allowed the scale of pay Rs. 450-700 be allowed in the revised scale of pay Rs.500-800 in the RPS, 1978 from the date of issue of pay Rs.500-800 in the R.P.S. 1978 from the date of issue of the Government Orders i.e., with effect from 26-2-1985 on par with Lab Technician Grade-II working in the counterpart department.

The Principal, Dr.BRKR Government Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad, is therefore requested to refix the pay of individual and draw and disburse the consequential difference of pay and allowances thereon to him.

Sri A.Swamy Das, Lab Technician (Retd.) is informed that any amount paid in excess to him due to erroneous refixation of his pay in revised scale of Rs.500-800 in the Revised Pay Scale, 1978 is liable to be recovered from his pensionary benefits at any time and without any notice thereon whenever such irregularity comes notice."

(iii) In pursuance of the aforesaid proceedings dated

16.11.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent, the 3rd

respondent issued proceedings in March 2010, appointing

the petitioner, by allowing RPS-1978 of Rs.500-800 with

effect from 26.02.1985 and also revising the annual grade

increments and by fixing in RPS 1986-1993 and 1999 and

calculated the scale of pay after adding the annual grade

increments of the revised pay scales, as stated above in

G.O.Ms.No.143, dated 26.02.1985. Even though the 3rd

respondent issued proceedings in March 2010 as directed

by the 2nd respondent, the authorities have not given effect

to the said proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent.

(iv) While so, the 1st respondent issued an

impugned Memo dated 10.12.2015 requesting the 2nd

respondent to examine and issue revised orders, overruling

the proceedings of the 2nd respondent (Additional Director),

i.e. orders dated 16.11.2005, which were issued by the 2nd

respondent in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No.143, dated

26.02.1985. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued a

Memo dated 28.01.2016, which was communicated to the

petitioner by the 3rd respondent by Memo No.778/E/2016

dated 04.03.2016.

(v) Thereafter, the petitioner made representations

to the 2nd respondent, requesting to implement the orders

passed by the 3rd respondent in March 2010. The 1st

respondent issued impugned Memo without following the

principles of natural justice. Similarly, the earlier orders

issued by the 2nd respondent in 2005 in compliance of

orders in GO Ms No.143 dated 26.02.1985 issued by the

1st respondent and therefore without cancelling

G.O.Ms.No.143, dated 26.02.1985 or modifying and

without issuing notice and opportunity to the petitioner,

either respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 has no

jurisdiction to issue the impugned orders, but the

authorities have not considered the representation made

by the petitioner, even though the petitioner has repeatedly

approached the authorities. Hence, the present writ

petition.

3. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel, appearing

for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for

Services-II appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that the respondents have erroneously issued the

impugned memos without considering the provisions

mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.143, dated 26.02.1985 and,

therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition

setting aside the impugned memos and allow the writ

petition.

5. Learned Government Pleader filed a counter affidavit

stating that though the conditions laid down in

G.O.Ms.No.143, M&H Department, dated 26.02.1985 are

applicable to the Lab Technicians working in the

Directorate of Medical Education Department and not for

AYUSH Department, claiming parity with Lab Technicians

of DME Department and requested for grant of equal pay

scale of Rs.500-800, and the Additional Director

(Ayurveda), without verification, and on an erroneous

interpretation of the applicability of GOMs.No.143, issued

proceeding dated 16.11.2005 allowing higher pay-scale of

Rs.500-800 in the Revised Pay Scales, 1978 from the date

of issuance of Government Orders i.e., 26.02.1985.

6. It is further stated that AYUSH (as IM&H

Department) and DME are two different departments. The

Pay Revision Commission has its own authority to assign

pay scales. Similarity nomenclature of posts cannot form

the basis for parity of pay scale. Various factors, like

qualifications, duties and responsibilities, scope, burden

and place of duty etc are kept in view in assigning parity. It

is further stated that the Government requested to re-

examine and issue revised orders overruling the

proceedings dated 16.11.2005 issued by the Additional

Director (Ayurveda). Thereafter, the Commissioner,

Department of AYUSH, issued a Memo dated 28.01.2016

cancelling the proceedings dated 16.11.2005 issued by the

Additional Director (Ayurveda), and, therefore, the prayer of

the petitioner for releasing of all monetary benefits in terms

of the proceedings dated 16.11.2005, which stood

cancelled subsequently vide Memo dated 28.01.2016, does

not arise. Further, the challenge laid to the Government

Memo dated 10.12.2015 after a lapse of 6 years is

impermissible on the ground of delay and laches.

Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the

same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by

learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the

record, it is to be noted that, admittedly, the petitioner is a

Lab Technician in the AYUSH Department, and upon his

request for a grant of enhanced pay scale, claiming parity

with corresponding post of Lab Technician in DME, the

Additional Director, vide Proceedings dated 16.11.2005,

granted enhanced pay-scale. However, it is to be noted that

it is the specific contention of the 1st respondent

Government that nomenclature alone is not the criteria for

parity in pay scales and the Pay Revision Commission,

though it has its own authority in fixing the pay-scales,

several other factors like qualifications, duties and

responsibilities, etc., come into play when fixing the pay

scale to a post in a particular Department. It is the specific

contention of the 1st respondent, based on the record,

GOMs.No.143, dated 26.02.1985, was exclusively issued

for the employees of DME Department, and it is the specific

stand of the Government that even the said GOMs.No.143,

dated 26.02.1985, was not marked to AYUSH Department

and, therefore, the Additional Director (Aurveda) issuing

the proceedings dated 16.11.2005 making it applicable to

AYUSH Department is misconceived. In the said G.O.,

nowhere it is mentioned that the said G.O., is applicable to

the employees of the Ayush Department also.

8. While issuing the proceedings in 2005, the Additional

Director did not refer the file nor even check the

applicability of G.O.Ms.No.143 to the petitioner. The G.O.

relied upon by the Additional Director does not appear to be

applicable to AYUSH as Indian Medicine Dept., and DME are

two different Departments. Therefore, the 1st respondent issued

Memo dated 10.12.2015 as follows :-

"..... While issuing proceedings in 2005, the Additional Director did not refer the file nor even check the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.143 to the individual. The GO relied upon by the Additional Director does not appear to be applicable to AYUSH as Indian Medicine Dept., and DME are two different Departments,

2. She is further informed the Govt., usually implemented the pay scale basis on the recommendations of Pay Revision Commission. The Pay Revision Commission has its own judgment in assigning Pay Scales and is the right forum to evolve relativities and parties among various categories as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements. Moreover, mere similarity in the nomenclature of posts cannot be basis for equation in pay scales. Apart from qualifications, duties and responsibilities, various factors like scope, burden and places of duly etc., have also be kept in view in this regard.

The Commissioner of Ayush, Telangana, Hyderabad is therefore requested to re-examine and issue revised orders overruling the proceedings of Additional Director of AYUSH in the matter."

9. Furthermore, the Government of Telangana has

examined the matter and issued proceedings dated

28.01.2016, cancelling the proceedings dated 16.11.2005

of the Additional Director (Ayurveda). While issuing

G.O.Ms.No.143, dated 26.02.1985, the Government has

not given clarity with regard to its applicability to the

employees of the Medical and Health Department.

Moreover, the order dated 16.11.2005 relates to the

refixation of pay of the petitioner and in the proceedings

dated 16.11.2005, it was specifically stated by the

Additional Director (Ayurveda) that whenever any

irregularity comes into notice, will recover the amounts

wrongly credited. The petitioner accepted the said

proceedings without any protest.

10. In the instant case, the proceedings dated

16.11.2005 were cancelled in the year 2016 itself. The

present writ petition is filed after a lapse of nearly six

years. Once the proceedings were cancelled six years back,

the writ petition cannot be entertained for restoration of

the proceedings, dated 16.11.2005. Moreover,

G.O.Ms.No.143, dated 26.02.1985 is not applicable to the

Department, where the petitioner is employed. Hence, the

question of releasing the monetary benefits to the

petitioner does not arise. Therefore, there are no merits in

the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order

as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

13.03.2025 Prv