ORDER : This writ petition is filled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the time scale to the petitioners in their respective cadre on par with the regular employees as per the judgment of Apex Court reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 and proceedings of the 2 respondent in Rc.No.A1/1102643/29/2022, dated 1.8.2022 as bad, illegal, arbitrary improper, unjust, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to extend the minimum time scale PRC 2022 to the petitioners and to grant all consequential service and monetary benefits and pass …” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners No.1 to 3 herein were appointed on 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively on Petty Supervisory charges and they have completed 10 years of service and even their cases are recommended by the Executive Officer of the 3rdrespondent temple for payment of Minimum wages on par with the regular employees vide proceedings in Rc. No.A1/1656/2019 dated 6-12-2019, Rc. No.E1/653/2019 dated 5-7-2019 and Rc. No.A1/1656/2019 dated 17-8-2019 and the same are pending. It is stated that, as on today, the petitioners are paid as follows S.No Name Cadre Salary (pP.M) 1 T. Naveen Babu Work Inspector (Civil) 18000/- 2 M Veeraiah Work Inspector (Mechanical) 12000/- 3 K. Shanmukha Venkatesh Asst Sthapathi 16500/ It is further stated that the petitioners are eligible for payment on par with the regular employees as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2017 (1) SCC 148 as the petitioners are performing the duties assigned to regular employees, and further, the petitioners possess the required qualification to hold the posts on par with the regular employees. As such, the petitioners are eligible for extension of minimum time scale in the 3rdrespondent on par with the regular employees. Further the work in the temple is perennial in nature as such the petitioners are eligible for payment of equal pay equal work on par with the regular employees. As such, the petitioners are eligible for extension of minimum time scale in the 3rdrespondent on par with the regular employees. Further the work in the temple is perennial in nature as such the petitioners are eligible for payment of equal pay equal work on par with the regular employees. It is further stated that Petitioners services are equal to that of the regular employees, there is no differences between the services rendered by the petitioners with relation to the duties, functions and responsibilities as such, petitioners are eligible for the extension of time scale attached to the respective post as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017(1) SCC 148 . It is further stated that in the similar circumstances this Hon'ble Court has granted interim orders in W.P.No.38513 of 2018 and W.P.No.38820 of 2018 to the employees working on P.S. Charges, hence the petitioners stand on the similar footing as such they are entitled for minimum time scale in their respective cadre basing on the Apex court and this Hon'ble Court orders. It is further stated that the petitioners have filed W.P. No.13641 of 2020 before this Hon'ble Court declaring the action of the respondents herein in not extending the 2015 time scale to them in their respective cadre on par with regular employees as per the Judgment of Apex Court reported in 2017(1) SCC 148 and for other reliefs and the said writ petition is pending. While the matter stood thus, during pending the above writ petition, the 2ndrespondent has issued proceedings in Rc. No.A1/11026(43)/29/2022 dated 1-8-2022 wherein instructions were given to the Executive Officers of major Temple and other 6(a) Temples in the state to revise the minimum time scale of pay of the corresponding scales in P.R.C. 2022 to the N.M.R. Contract / Consolidated employees of their respective temples, who were already extended the benefit minimum time scale of PRC 2015 to pay without allowances, as per the instructions of the Government w.e.f., from the date of issuance of these orders. Thus, the petitioners are eligible and entitled for extending the minimum time scale of 2015 and PRC 2022, now mentioning the above pending writ petition, the PRC 2022 is not extended to the petitioners, is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Thus, the petitioners are eligible and entitled for extending the minimum time scale of 2015 and PRC 2022, now mentioning the above pending writ petition, the PRC 2022 is not extended to the petitioners, is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, while denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia contended that, the 3rd Respondent engaged the services of the petitioners as 'Work-charged' workers and attached them to Engineering wing of Devasthanam and continues to utilize the services whenever required and used to / arranged payment of wages through contractors, mode of payment has been changed creating separate account under the head 'petty supervision charges and the amount as required would be set apart at the rate of 2.5% on the estimated value of work. It is further stated that the very nature of employment and the very term 'work charged workers' signify that immediately after completion of work, the services of them would no longer be required. It is further stated that the nature of duties: assessed or measured in terms of volume and value of work and sensitivity of job as being discharged by the petitioner cannot be weighed and treated as similar in any respect with that of the duties as would be discharged by the regular employees and even remotely in the area of responsibilities no similarity can be drawn/visualized between the regular employees and the petitioners and viewed in the backdrop of the case, reliance is placed on 'Jagjith Singh’s case (supra 1) seems to be misplaced and temporary employees can take recourse to principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and claim minimum pay scale on par with regular employees holding the same post: provided temporary employees fulfil the parameters as summarized in para 42 of the said judgment and it was observed in para 60 of the said judgment. It is further stated that through the parameters as delineated in Para 42: the petitioners shall stand obliged to prove that the duties being performed by them are similar with that of the duties as being discharged by regular employees even it established that the salaries of the petitioners would be paid under separate account-petty supervision charges, the petitioners are not entitled to minimum time scale, in view of the legal position held in para 2.10, on the lines that persons engaged differently and being paid out of different funds would not be entitled to pay parity and in totality of circumstances the petitioners are not entitled to minimum time scale. Further, mere recommendations or proposals would not accord any right to the petitioners in any manner without there being any sanctity of law.It is further stated that, at present including with the petitioners 6 members are working under P.S.charges (Petty Supervision charges) basis and once work completed their services will be dispensed. In this connection, a report has been sent to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Gollapudi, Vijayawada in Rc.No.E1/921/2016, Dt.25.05.2021 for continuing the services and orders are awaited. It is further stated that regarding proceedings of the 2nd respondent i.e., Commissioner, in Rc.No.A1/11026(43)/29/2022, dated 01.08.2022 issued instructions to revise the minimum scale of pay of the corresponding scales in PRC 2022 to the NMR/Contract/Consolidated employees of their respective temples, who were already extended the benefit of minimum time scale of pay without allowances as per the instructions of the Government in Govt Memo No.36021/32/Endts.I(2)/2018-1 dated 04.07.2018 and Govt Memo No.36021/32/Endts. I/2018, dated 05.12.2018 and Commissioner office instructions issued in Proceedings in Rc. No.A1/1059511/2018, dated 20.07.2018 and Rc.No.COE-11026/64/2018-A Sec-Endowments, dated 12.12.2018 with effect from the date of issuance of these orders. But the petitioners are not NMR/ Contract/ Consolidate employees. The petitioners are working on mode of payment has been changed creating separate account under the head 'petty supervision charges and the amount as required would be set apart at t the rate of 2.5% on the estimated value of work. The very nature of employment and the very term 'work -charged workers signify that immediately after completion of work, the services of them would no longer be required. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this W.P. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 4. The very nature of employment and the very term 'work -charged workers signify that immediately after completion of work, the services of them would no longer be required. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this W.P. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents made in the petition submits that the petitioners are discharging their duties like regular employees and accordingly they are entitled for the minimum time scale. To support his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon a case of Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra 1), wherein the Apex Court held in para-57, as follows: 57. 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. 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 wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the above decision, submits that, as per the above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, in this case, the petitioners are also entitled for minimum time scale and hence requests this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to pay the minimum time scale to the petitioners. 7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit denied all the contents made by the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners are not entitled for minimum time scale as they are not regular employees. He further submits that the petitioners are not entitled in view of legal position held in para 42 (x) of Jagjit Singh’s case, reads as under: 42……… .xxx Xx x) A comparison between the subject post and the reference post, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, cannot be made, where the subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having a different management. Or even, where the establishments are in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master (see – the Harbans Lal case23). Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity.” 8. Or even, where the establishments are in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master (see – the Harbans Lal case23). Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity.” 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader while relying on the above decision, submits that, on the lines that persons engaged differently and being paid out of different funds would not be entitled to pay parity and in totality of circumstances the petitioners are not entitled to minimum time scale. The mere recommendations or proposals would not accord any right to the petitioners in any manner without there being any sanctity of law. Therefore, requests to dismiss the present petition as devoid of merits. 9. On a perusal of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagjit Sing’s case (supra 1), wherein the Apex Court held in paras-43 and 44, as under: 43. We shall now venture to summarize the conclusions recorded by this Court, with reference to a claim of pay parity, raised by temporary employees (differently designated as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like), in the following two paragraphs. 44. We shall first outline the conclusions drawn in cases where a claim for pay parity, raised at the hands of the concerned temporary employees, was accepted by this Court, by applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, with reference to regular employees:- (i) In the Dhirendra Chamoli case19 this Court examined a claim for pay parity raised by temporary employees, for wages equal to those being disbursed to regular employees. The prayer was accepted. The action of not paying the same wage, despite the work being the same, was considered as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held, that the action amounted to exploitation – in a welfare state committed to a socialist pattern of society. (ii) In the Surinder Singh case this Court held, that the right of equal wages claimed by temporary employees emerged, inter alia, from Article 39 of the Constitution. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was again applied, where the subject employee had been appointed on temporary basis, and the reference employee was borne on the permanent establishment. The temporary employee was held entitled to wages drawn by an employee on the regular establishment. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was again applied, where the subject employee had been appointed on temporary basis, and the reference employee was borne on the permanent establishment. The temporary employee was held entitled to wages drawn by an employee on the regular establishment. In this judgment, this Court also took note of the fact, that the above proposition was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in the D.S. Nakara case. (iii) In the Bhagwan Dass case this Court recorded, that in a claim for equal wages, the duration for which an employee would remain (-or had remained) engaged, would not make any difference. So also, the manner of selection and appointment would make no difference. And therefore, whether the selection was made on the basis of open competition or was limited to a cluster of villages, was considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle is concerned. And likewise, whether the appointment was for a fixed limited duration (six months, or one year), or for an unlimited duration, was also considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is concerned. It was held, that the claim for equal wages would be sustainable, where an employee is required to discharge similar duties and responsibilities as regular employees, and the concerned employee possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post. In the above case, this Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the Government, that the plea of equal wages by the employees in question, was not sustainable because the concerned employees were engaged in a temporary scheme, and against posts which were sanctioned on a year to year basis. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Therefore, the impugned action of denial of benefit to the petitioners herein offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and the law laid down the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 11. Therefore, the impugned action of denial of benefit to the petitioners herein offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and the law laid down the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to allow the present writ petition by declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the time scale to the petitioners in their respective cadre on par with the regular employees as per the judgment of Apex Court reported in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra 1) and proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc No.A1/11026(43)/29/2022, dated 1.8.2022, as illegal and arbitrary. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Rc No.A1/11026(43)/29/2022, dated 01.08.2022, issued by the 2nd respondent are hereby set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to extend the minimum time scale PRC 2022 to the petitioners as per observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 57 and 58, by following the instructions issued in para 42 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.