Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1209 (AP)

Commissioner v. Shaik Mastan

2025-11-26

A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA, BATTU DEVANAND

body2025
JUDGMENT : BATTU DEVANAND, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 01.08.2022 in W.P.No.5401 of 2020, passed by the learned Single Judge. 2 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3 . The parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition, for the sake of convenience. 4 . S ubmissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners: (a) The case of the Writ Petitioners is that as per the resolution passed by the Tiruvur Gram Panchayat, dated 26.12.1990, the petitioners were appointed on tender basis on 01.01.1991 to 31.12.1991, by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, dated 26.12.1990. Subsequently, vide proceedings, dated 29.02.1992, the Divisional Panchayat Officer extended the same for a period of one (01) year and thereafter, it was extended from time to time. (b) As per the G.O.Ms.No.572, dated 28.12.2011 issued by the State Government, the Tiruvur Gram Panchayat had upgraded to Tiruvuru Nagara Panchayat. Thereafter also, the petitioners are working in the same office. They were initially appointed on contract basis for maintenance of pipeline works, electrical motors and maintenance of fogging machine by the Divisional Panchayat Officer. As they are continuing for several years on contract basis, they requested the respondents to extend the benefit of payment of time scale in the light of the Government Orders issued time to time particularly in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.142, Finance (HR.I-Plg. & Policy) Department, dated 27.08.2018. As their request was not considered, they approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition No.5401 of 2020. A learned Single Judge, by order, dated 01.08.2022, allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents to grant minimum time scale with annual grade increments to the petitioners, on par with the regular employees, discharging duties corresponding to the respective posts in Gram Panchayat. 5 . Aggrieved by the same, the Commissioner Nagar Panchayat, Tiruvuru, Krishna District, preferred the present Appeal. 6. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents: (a) Basing on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is contended that the petitioners are not entitled for minimum time scale as per G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018, and they are not part time employees to extend minimum pay in RPS, 2015 to bring them first time into this scheme prescribed as per G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018. (b) Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are engaged on contract basis as such, they would not fall under any of the categories mentioned in the G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018. The petitioners are migrated to The Andhra Pradesh Corporation for Outsourced Services [in short ‘the APCOS’] for outsourcing service and their services were taken over by the APCOS and payments are made by them and as such, the petitioners are not fall under any category of clause (4) of the G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018 and they are not entitled for the minimum time scale. (c) Learned counsel further contends that the learned Single Judge erroneously held that the petitioners are entitled for periodical increments as per the Rule 31 (a) of Rule 9 of the A.P. Fundamental Rules, when the case falls under Rule 20 of the Fundamental Rules. Finally, learned counsel submits that the order of the learned Single Judge, is unsustainable under law and sought to set-aside the same by allowing the Writ Appeal. 7 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Writ Petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working on contract basis from the year 1992 prior to the cut off date i.e. 25.11.1993 and as such, they are entitled for the benefit provided under G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018. Accordingly, he would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge is reasonable and in accordance with law and there are no grounds to interfere into the same and accordingly, sought to dismiss the Writ Appeal. 8 . It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners are working on contract basis in the respondent No.4/Nagar Panchayat much prior to the upgradation of Gram Panchayat to Naga Panchayat. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents also, it is admitted that the petitioners were appointed prior to the cut off date i.e., 25.11.1993. But their contention is that the G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018 is not applicable to the petitioners as they were working as contract workers since 1991 and therefore, the benefit of payment of timescale cannot be extended. 9 . For proper adjudication of the issue involved in the present case, it is desirable to look into the relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018, which is extracted herein under: “2. 9 . For proper adjudication of the issue involved in the present case, it is desirable to look into the relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018, which is extracted herein under: “2. The issue of extension of remuneration equivalent to the minimum of the time scale in the revised pay scales of 2015 to the Full-time/NMR/Daily wages/Consolidated Pay/Part-time employees who were appointed before the cut-off date i.e., 25.11.1993 has been entrusted to the Group of Ministers Committee. The Group of Ministers Committee in its meeting held on 11.06.2018 have extensive discussions on extension of revised pay scales to the Part Time/Full time employees working in various Government Departments in the State. In the discussions, the GoM has kept in mind the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013, dated 26.10.2016 for allowing the pay scales to the said employees. 3. The Group of Ministers have recommended the following:- (i) For those already drawing minimum pay + DA in RPS, 2010 in the State, to extend the minimum pay + DA in the revised pay scales, 2015. (ii) For those coming into this scheme for the first time like the part-time employees who were appointed prior to 25.11.1993 and working in various government departments in the State to extend minimum pay in RPS 2015 as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013, dated 26.10.2016.” 10 . On a bare perusal of the above, it appears that the Government has decided to extend minimum pay in RPS, 2015 as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013, dated 26.10.2016 to the employees, who are working as Full-time/NMR/Daily wages/Consolidated Pay/Part-time employees, and who were appointed before the cut-off date i.e., 25.11.1993. 11 . Reasons and Findings: (a) In the present case on hand, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners are appointed and working thereafter, before the cut off date i.e. 25.11.1993 and as such, there is no doubt that the petitioners are entitled for the time scale and as such, to the extent of direction of the learned Single Judge to grant minimum of pay scale to the petitioners cannot be find fault. The said direction is in accordance with the Government Order. The said direction is in accordance with the Government Order. (b) The sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State is that the Writ Petitioners are not entitled for the benefit extended under G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018. But, on perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018, the Government while agreeing with the recommendations of the Committee of group of the Ministers, decided to extend minimum pay in RPS, 2015 for those coming into this scheme for the first time like the part time employees, who are appointed prior to 25.11.1993 and working in various Government Departments, in the State. (c) As admittedly, the Writ Petitioners were appointed prior to 25.11.1993 and continuing service as on date, thus, in our considered opinion, the Writ Petitioners are entitled for the benefit of extending minimum pay scale as per the Government decision in the said G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018. In view of the same, there is no substance in the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.