JUDGMENT : Heard Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned GP for Services – IV, appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2, and Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief: “...to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not protecting pay scales of the petitioner which were drawing prior to regularization of their services is illegal arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to protect the pay scales of the petitioner which were drawn prior to regularization of their services as held by the Hon’ble AP Administrative Tribunal in OA No.2855/2012 and Batch dt. 15.6.2005 as confirmed by this Hon’ble Court in WP No.7537/2016 dt. 10.3.2016 if necessary by setting aside the orders issued in G.O.Rt. No. 438, MA, dt. 30.6.2008 and consequent orders of the 3rd and 4th respondents issued vide L. Dis. No.12026/10/2018/M2, dt. 14.7.2019 and Roc. No. 2372/2019/C1, dt. 20.3.2019 respectively only to the extent of in not protecting pay scales of the petitioners drawn prior to regularization of their service and pass such other order or orders….” 3. The action of the respondents in regularizing the petitioners’ services but without protection of their pay at the time of regularization is being challenged to the extent of not protecting the pay, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. 4. Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed during the years 1980, 1984, 1985 and 1988 onwards on daily wage basis in the 4th respondent Corporation, namely, the Chittoor Municipal Corporation, Chittoor, Chittoor District. They approached the then Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) by filing RP.No.20634 to 20646 of 1989 for regularization of their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1320, MA, dated 15.12.1981, in which the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the regularization of the petitioners’ cases in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.1320. The 3rd respondent- Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration, Gorantla, Guntur District, vide Circular No.42344/87, M2, dated 03.03.1989 provided for grant of the minimum time scale pending regularization. The 3rd respondent- Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration, Gorantla, Guntur District, vide Circular No.42344/87, M2, dated 03.03.1989 provided for grant of the minimum time scale pending regularization. Thereafter, vide L.Dis.No.14160/99-M2, dated 05.07.1989, issued by the 3rd respondent, periodical increments were also released to the petitioners. They were being extended minimum time scale in the year 1989 along with increments, pending regularization of their services. The services of the petitioners were regularized by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.438, MA & UD Department, dated 30.06.2019 prospectively from the date of issue of orders but the pay drawn by the petitioners prior to regularization of their services was not protected. Consequently, their pay has been refixed in the minimum time scale at the initial stage i.e. Rs.13,000-40,270 and thereby, their salary has been considerably reduced to their detriment causing much financial hardship. The orders dated 14.07.2019 and 20.03.2019 are the consequential orders issued by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on regularization of their services, pay could not be reduced and even if regularization was prospectively made, the pay the petitioners were receiving at the time of regularization should have been protected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some other workers working in the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Telangana State raising the same grievance had approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.2855 of 2012 and batch, for protection of pay scale and also retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years service, which was partly allowed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal by order dated 15.06.2015, directing the respondents therein to give protection of pay which was being drawn prior to regularization of the services, however, their prayer for retrospective regularization was rejected. The order of the Tribunal in one of the O.A(s) being O.A.No.2715 of 2013, out of the batch of O.A.No.2855 of 2012, was confirmed in W.P.No.7537 of 2016 by judgment dated 10.03.2016 by this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. 7. The order of the Tribunal in one of the O.A(s) being O.A.No.2715 of 2013, out of the batch of O.A.No.2855 of 2012, was confirmed in W.P.No.7537 of 2016 by judgment dated 10.03.2016 by this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. 7. Learned counsels for the respondents submitted that pay protection is applicable only to the Government employees who were appointed through proper channel/procedure as per the existing rules and policies and it applies only to the employees who were appointed by one government department and moved to the other government department as per the fundamental rules. The petitioners were appointed as Nominal Muster Roll (in short as ‘NMR’) in the 4th respondent Corporation during the years 1985, 1988 and 1989 and they were not eligible for regularization of their services as per G.O.Ms.No.1320, MA, dated 15.12.1981 as they had to complete 5 years of service as on 13.11.1980. 8. Learned counsels for the respondents further submitted that the petitioners, right from their initial date of joining till the regularization of their services on 20.07.2019 were working only as NMRs, and it was pursuant to the interim order dated 08.03.2022 passed by this Court directing the 3rd respondent to take final decision on the petitioners’ matter, as per law, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 23.03.2022 as per the Government Memo No.573225/A3/PC.III/97 dated 01.09.1997 for regularization of services of NMRs working in Chittoor Municipal Corporation from the prospective date i.e. from the date of issue of the orders by the competent authority i.e. 20.07.2019 and as per the Fundamental Rule 22(b) of the Fundamental Rules, pay scales of the individual were applicable to whatever post they were regularized and the further benefits will be extended from the date of regularization. The petitioners’ claim to give pay protection on par with the regular government employees is not maintainable. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners have right for the pay protection as they were receiving on the date preceding the date of regularization of their services on regularization of services on 20.07.2019? 11. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners have right for the pay protection as they were receiving on the date preceding the date of regularization of their services on regularization of services on 20.07.2019? 11. The petitioners herein approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing RP No.206342, 29646/1989 seeking regularization of their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1320, dated 15.12.1989 which was disposed of with direction to consider their cases. In compliance of the earlier order of the Tribunal passed in various other O.A(s), the respondents issued Circular vide Roc.No.42344/87-M2, dated 03.03.1989 instructing the Municipal Commissioners to pay the wages at the minimum applicable to pay to the last grade employees i.e., to the NMRs who have completed 5 years of service pending regularization. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration vide L.Dis.No.14160/99-M2, dated 05.07.1999 also requested the Municipal Commissioner, Chittoor to sanction annual grade increments and other benefits from the date of sanction of time scale draw minimum time scale to 57 NMRs, as per Circular Roc.No.42344/87-M2, dated 03.03.1989, as there was no provision to create supernumerary posts to absorb those NMRs pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. Pursuant thereto, the Municipal Commissioner, Chittoor vide proceedings No.2322/99, E.1, dated 25.08.1999 allowed the petitioners the annual grade increments and other benefits on par with regular employees from the date of their respective appointments for which Roc.No.2372/2019/C1, dated 08.06.2020 was also issued. Their respective salary was fixed and released accordingly. 12. After regularization of the services of the petitioners in the existing vacancies arisen on different dates, vide proceedings Roc.No.2572/2019, dated 18.12.2019, pay bills of the petitioners were forwarded to the treasury which raised an objection that the individuals should draw the initial pay in the scale of pay attached to the post from the date of the order of regularization, pursuant to which, the Commissioner, Chittoor Municipal Corporation sought clarification from the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, A.P., and in response vide Roc.No.12026/10/2018-D Sec, dated 23.03.2022, it was clarified that the regularization of the petitioners was from prospective date i.e., from 20.07.2019 and as per FR 22(b) of A.P.Fundamental Rules, the pay scales of the individuals were applicable on whatever post they were regularized and further benefits will be extended from the date of regularization. 13. Thus, it is evident that the Tribunal on 19.05.1989 had passed order that the petitioners’ case is covered by G.O.Ms.No.1320, dated 15.12.1989 and their services shall be considered to regularization forthwith in accordance with rules and order in that regard shall be issued within two months from the date of receipt of copy of that order. Prior thereto the Circular dated 03.03.1989 had been issued by the respondents and as there was no provision to create supernumerary post to absorb NMRs they were also sanctioned annual grade increments and other benefits from the date of sanction of time scale, draw minimum time scale from the date of their appointment, and accordingly, their pay was fixed. 14. The orders dated 05.07.1999 and 25.08.1999 are being reproduced as under: “From Sri A.Joyendra Dyal IAS Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration A.P. Hyderabad To Municipal Commissioner Chittoor L.Dis.No.14160/99-M2, dated 5.7.99 Sub: Estt; - Chittoor Municipality – Sanction of increments and other benefits to 57 NMRs – Reg. Ref: Your letter Roc No.2322/99-C1, dt.7.6.99 ****** I invite your attention to the reference cited and request you to sanction Annual Grade increments and other benefits from the date of sanction of time Scale draw minimum time scale to 57 NMRs as per circular Roc.No.42344/87-M2, dated 3.3.89 of the Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration and inform that there is no provision to create supernumerary posts to absorb NMRs in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.212 F&P, dated 22.4.94. Yours faithfully, Sd/-M.Mallesha For Commissioner & Director Copy to the Chair Person, Chittor Sd/-Superintendent. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CHITTOOR Present: Sri S. RAMA NARAYANA REDDY, B.Tech., COMMISSIONER Roc.No.2322/99, E1 Dated: 25.08.1999 Sub: Chittor Municipality – Engineering Establishment –Sanction of increments and other benefits to 53 NMRs – Orders – Issues. Ref: 1. This office Roc.No.3025/89, E.1 dt.31-5-1989 and 21-6-1989 2. This Office letter Roc No.8544/89, E.1, dt.29-9-1989 3. This office letter Roc.No.4660/94, dt.26-5-1997 & 1861/96, C.1, dated 2-4-1996 4. L.Dis.No.14160/99, M.2, dt.5-7-1999 of the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, A.P., Hyderabad 5. Ref: 1. This office Roc.No.3025/89, E.1 dt.31-5-1989 and 21-6-1989 2. This Office letter Roc No.8544/89, E.1, dt.29-9-1989 3. This office letter Roc.No.4660/94, dt.26-5-1997 & 1861/96, C.1, dated 2-4-1996 4. L.Dis.No.14160/99, M.2, dt.5-7-1999 of the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, A.P., Hyderabad 5. Roc.No.2322/99, E.1, dated 19-7-1999 of this office -o0o- ORDER: In pursuance of the reference and orders of the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in the reference 4th cited the following employees who are drawing time scales of pay with effect from 28-4-1989, 6-6-1989, 9-8-1989, 1-5-1997, 12-10-1990, 15-4-1997 and 2-4-1996 are allowed to get annual increment and other benefits on par with regular employees from the date of their appointment. Accordingly, the pay of the following individuals is fixed in scales 1986 and scales 1993 and they are released increments as detailed in the annexure enclosed. They are entitled for arrears of pay and allowances due to above fixation. In r/o scales, 1993, they will get monetary benefit from 1-4-1993 only. They are informed that the pay now fixed is found to be in excess and erroneous than to which they are entitled will be recovered from their salaries without any notice. Sd/- Commissioner, Chittoor Municipality” 15. The services of the petitioners were later on regularized vide proceedings Roc.No.2372/2019/C1 dated 08.06.2020. On the date immediately preceding the date of regularization the petitioners were receiving the minimum of time scale with addition of annual grade increments. The annual grade increments were granted to the petitioners by specific orders at par the regular government employees, though the petitioners’ services were not regularized by that time and their matter for regularization was pending consideration. 16. In State Bank of India v. K.P.Subbaiah, (2003) 11 SCC 646 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in service jurisprudence the expressions ‘pay’ and ‘pay scale’ are conceptually different connotations. Pay is essentially a consideration for the services rendered by an employee and is the remuneration which is payable to him. Remuneration is the recurring payment for services rendered during the tenure of employment. After referring to the meaning of the word ‘pay’ as per Concise Oxford Dictionary and Fundamental Rule 9(21) as involved therein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that there are different types of pay, like substantive pay, special pay, additional pay, personal pay and presumptive pay. Remuneration is the recurring payment for services rendered during the tenure of employment. After referring to the meaning of the word ‘pay’ as per Concise Oxford Dictionary and Fundamental Rule 9(21) as involved therein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that there are different types of pay, like substantive pay, special pay, additional pay, personal pay and presumptive pay. It was further held that the public services comprise different grades and therefore different pay scales are provided for different grades. The pay of an employee is in that background fixed with reference to a pay scale and employee starts with a particular pay which is commonly known as initial pay and the periodical increases obtained by him are commonly known as increments. When the highest point is reached, the employee concerned becomes entitled to what is known as ceiling pay. It is therefore a graded upward revision. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that a pay scale has different stages starting with initial pay and ending with ceiling pay. Each stage in the scale is commonly referred to as basic pay. The emoluments which an employee gets is not only the basic pay at a particular stage, but also the additional amounts to which he is entitled as allowances e.g. DA etc. The Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that when a question of pay protection comes, the basic feature is that the fitment or fixation of pay in a particular scale must be such as to ensure that the total emoluments are not reduced. 17. It is apt to reproduce paragraph-22 of K.P.Subbaiah (supra) as under: “22. As noted above, a pay scale has different stages starting with initial pay and ending with ceiling pay. Each stage in the scale is commonly referred to as basic pay. The emoluments which an employee gets is not only the basic pay at a particular stage, but also the additional amounts to which he is entitled as allowances e.g. DA etc. Therefore, when a question of pay protection comes, the basic feature is that the fitment or fixation of pay in a particular scale must be such as to ensure that the total emoluments are not reduced.” 18. Regularization of service is a different concept in service jurisprudence. The effect of regularization is that after regularization the ad hoc and stop gap nature of the appointment does not survive. 19. Regularization of service is a different concept in service jurisprudence. The effect of regularization is that after regularization the ad hoc and stop gap nature of the appointment does not survive. 19. In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the concept of equality would not be applicable to the issue of absorption/regularization but the concept was held as applicable and was applied to the issue of pay parity, if the work component was the same. In State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that on the issue of pay parity, the concept of equality would be applicable but the principle of equality could not be invoked for absorbing the temporary employees in government service or for making temporary employees regular / permanent. 20. Regularization of the petitioners’ services cannot be to their detriment. While conferring the status of regular employee, on the matter of payment of pay, reducing them to the initial stage of pay scale would be arbitrary and violate the principle of equality i.e., equal pay for equal work. The petitioners though NMRs were being paid pay with increments at par the regular government employees prior to their regularization which was in consonance with the principle of equal pay for equal work. After their placement in the regular pay scale the pay which they were drawing pursuant to the orders issued by the respondents granting the minimum of time scale as also the annual grade increments at par with government employees, cannot be taken away. 21. Therefore, on regularization the fixation of their pay in a particular scale applicable to the respective post must be such as to ensure that the total emoluments which the petitioners were drawing, immediately preceding to the date of regularization are not reduced. The corporation cannot fix pay lesser than the pay the petitioners were being paid on the date of their regularization. 22. The corporation cannot fix pay lesser than the pay the petitioners were being paid on the date of their regularization. 22. The judgment dated 15.06.2015 in batch of O.A.(s) filed by different NMR workers working in different municipalities/municipal corporations, one of which O.A(s), O.A.No.2855 of 2012 decided along with connected batch was allowed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) holding that the applicants therein were entitled for protection of the pay if it was over and above minimum timescale and they were entitled to those monetary benefits which they were drawing prior to the regularization of their services, against which the writ petition No.7537 of 2016 filed by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (in short ‘GVMC’) was dismissed on 10.03.2016. A reading of the judgment dated 10.03.2016 of this Court shows that this Court clarified that the judgment of the Tribunal shall necessarily mean that Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation could not fix the pay lesser than the pay scale which were being paid to the original applicants as on the date of the regularization. 23. Relevant part of judgment dated 10.03.2016 reads as under : “A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal would clearly show that the first part of the relief claimed by the private respondents, viz., to give notional seniority without monetary benefits retrospectively was turned down by the Tribunal and the relief that was granted by it was only confined to protecting the monetary benefits to the extent of the pay scale drawn by them prior to their regularization. This shall necessarily mean that the petitioner cannot fix the pay lesser than the pay scale which was being paid to the private respondents as on the date of their regularization. Therefore, the private respondents are not entitled to claim any larger benefit than the above mentioned relief granted by the Tribunal. Subject to this clarification, the Writ Petition is dismissed.” 24. Therefore, the private respondents are not entitled to claim any larger benefit than the above mentioned relief granted by the Tribunal. Subject to this clarification, the Writ Petition is dismissed.” 24. FR 22(b) provides as under: “(b) If the conditions prescribed in clause (a) are not fulfilled, he will draw as initial pay the minimum of the time-scale: Provided, both in cases covered by clause (a) and in cases other than cases of re-employment after resignation, removal or dismissal from the public service covered by clause (b), that if he either – (1) Has previously held substantively or officiated in – (i) The same post, or (ii) A permanent or temporary post on the same time-scale, or (iii) A permanent post, other than a tenure post, on an identical time-scale, or a temporary post on an identical time-scale such post being on the same time-scale as a permanent post; or (2) Is appointed substantively to a tenure post on a time-scale identifical with that of another tenure post which he has previously held substantively or in which he has previously officiated, then the initial pay shall not be less than the pay other than special pay, personal pay or emoluments classed as pay by the Governor under Rule 9(21)(a)(iii), which be drew on the last such occasion, and he shall count the period during which he drew that pay on such last and any previous occasion for increment in the stage of the time-scale equivalent to that pay. If, however the pay last drawn by the Government servant in a temporary post has been inflated by the grant of premature increments, the pay which he would have drawn but for the grant of those increments shall, unless otherwise ordered by the authority competent to create the new post, be taken for the purposes of this proviso to be the pay which he last drew in the temporary post. 25. Fundamental Rule 22(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules provides that if the conditions prescribed in clause (a) are not fulfilled, the initial substantive pay of the government employee who is appointed substantively to a post on time scale, will draw initial pay the minimum of the time scale. 25. Fundamental Rule 22(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules provides that if the conditions prescribed in clause (a) are not fulfilled, the initial substantive pay of the government employee who is appointed substantively to a post on time scale, will draw initial pay the minimum of the time scale. The submission of the learned Government Pleader that in view of Fundamental Rule 22(b) the petitioners with effect from the date of the regularization will draw the initial pay in the minimum of the time scale, cannot be accepted, as the petitioners were already granted the annual grade increments by specific orders passed by the respondents and were drawing the minimum of the time scale with annual grade increments added. If his submission is accepted, then the petitioners’ pay would be reduced to the minimum of the time scale. The Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 10.03.2016 in W.P.No.7537 of 2016 clearly lays down that the municipal corporation could not fix the pay lesser than the pay scale which was paid to the respondents therein as on the date of their regularization. 26. Fundamental Rule 22 (b), in the case of the petitioners, cannot be read nor given effect to, so as to violate the petitioners’ right to equality in the matters of pay payment which they were already receiving pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal 15.06.2015 granting minimum of the time scale read with the order dated 25.08.1999 passed by the respondents themselves adding annual grade increments to minimum of the time scale at par the regular employees by specific orders. 27. The decision taken by the respondents pertaining to pay fixation of the petitioners that they will be entitled for the pay i.e., basic in the pay scale of Rs.13000 – 40270 from the date of regularization is unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial which has been taken in ignorance of the material on record i.e., that the petitioners were granted annual grade increments by specific orders and other benefits at par with the regular government employees. 28. The impugned action of the respondents deserves interference, even if administrative pertaining to the pay fixation. In Anil Ratan Sarkar v. State of W.B., (2001) 5 SCC 327 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that administrative ipse dixit cannot infiltrate on to an arena which stands covered by judicial orders. 28. The impugned action of the respondents deserves interference, even if administrative pertaining to the pay fixation. In Anil Ratan Sarkar v. State of W.B., (2001) 5 SCC 327 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that administrative ipse dixit cannot infiltrate on to an arena which stands covered by judicial orders. In K.T.Veerappa v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 406 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that there is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well settled that the Courts should interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. 29. The Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents shall fix the pay of the petitioners in the pay scale as applicable on regularization of their services protecting the pay as was being paid immediately preceding the date of their regularization. The necessary consequences shall follow. 30. The respondents shall complete the aforesaid entire exercise within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this judgment before the respondents. 31. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.