Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1673 (TS)

S. Srinivas v. State of Telangana

2025-12-01

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned Standing Counsel for Shadnagar Municipality, Badangpet, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5. 2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the Minimum regular time scale in the Last Grade service to the petitioners under the principles of Equal pay,Equal work as per the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2017(1) SCC 148 in the state of Punjab and others Verses Jagjitsingh and others as illegal, arbitrary and Un-constitutional and consequently direct the respondents to pay the Minimum regular time scale in the Last Grade service to the petitioners under the principles of Equal pay, Equal work as per the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2017(1) SCC 148 in the state of Punjab and others Verses Jagjit singh with all incidental and consequential benefits duly taking into consideration the length of service put by the petitioners and to pass...”. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:- The petitioners were appointed as Bill Collectors in various Gram Panchayats through a valid selection process and the petitioners appointments were approved and salaries were paid to the petitioners based on regular annual permission being given by the District Collector, confirming their continuous service. The petitioners’ appointments were subsequently ratified by the District Collector, Panchayat Raj Wing, and the petitioners continued to work in sanctioned posts in their respective Gram Panchayats without any interruption. Later on, several Gram Panchayats were merged to form Badangpet Nagar Panchayat in 2013, and the petitioners services were taken over by Badangpet Municipality, where the petitioners continued performing the same duties as regular Bill Collectors. Despite working continuously and discharging identical functions, petitioners were not granted with the minimum time scale of pay. Later on, several Gram Panchayats were merged to form Badangpet Nagar Panchayat in 2013, and the petitioners services were taken over by Badangpet Municipality, where the petitioners continued performing the same duties as regular Bill Collectors. Despite working continuously and discharging identical functions, petitioners were not granted with the minimum time scale of pay. Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment, in State of Punjab & Others vs. Jagjit Singh , reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148 , wherein it is categorically held that employees working on daily wage / NMR basis are entitled to minimum time scale of pay on the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD (A) The Relevant portion of the interim order dated 20.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.16210 of 2021, is extracted hereunder: “ 6. Admit. Post after ten (10) weeks for hearing. This matter is coming from 19.07.2021 for filing of counter by the respondents. The Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents took time on several occasions for filing counter, but till today no counter is filed. Today also none appeared for the respondent No.5. In view of the same, there shall be interim direction to the respondents to pay Minimum regular time scale attached to the post of similar to which the petitioners are rendering their services as per the law declared in the State of Punjab Vs. Jagit Singh and others reported in ( 2017 SCC (1 ) 148), within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly contends that the subject issue in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 23.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.6650 of 2018 and also by the order of this Court dated 15.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.26584 of 2019. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents places reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5 and mainly contends that the petitioners are not eligible for payment of minimum time scale since the petitioners are neither regular employees nor working against the sanctioned posts in Badangpet Municipal Corporation. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents places reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5 and mainly contends that the petitioners are not eligible for payment of minimum time scale since the petitioners are neither regular employees nor working against the sanctioned posts in Badangpet Municipal Corporation. It is further contended that the petitioners are only entitled for wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as per the Government orders vide G.O.Ms.No.60, dated 11.06.2021 and accordingly, the petitioners are being paid Rs.15,600/- per month as on date, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the grant of relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition. 7. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, in State of Punjab and others vs Jagjit Singh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-paras (1)(2)(3), of the said judgment observed as under: “54 “The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- “(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously, with notional breaks, by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in such category of persons. Their claim for regularization, if any, may have to be considered separately in terms of legally permissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months.” 8. Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana in Judgment dated 07.08.2020 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.47675 of 2018 in G. Srinivasa Chary Vs State of Telangana, observed as under: 79. “In the result. (a) The Writ Petition is allowed: (b) the respondents' action in engaging the petitioners on "outsourcing basis" as Sanitary Supervisors (SFA), Sanitation Workers, Entomology Field Workers, Entomology Superior Field Workers, Supervisors (EFA), Superior Field Assistants through intermediaries/agencies/contractors is contrary to law, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the law declared by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (1 supra) mandating periodic regular recruitment to sanctioned posts: (c) that the "outsourcing system adopted by the GHMC is only a sham and a ruse to avoid extending to the petitioners their genuine service entitlements; and that the presence of such intermediary/contractor has to be ignored, and the petitioners are held to have been directly engaged by the GHMC and they are also held entitled to be considered for regularisation of their services: (d) consequently, the respondents, while continuously engaging the services of the petitioners directly henceforth, are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services, by ignoring the existence of the intermediaries/agencies/contractors in the posts of Sanitary Supervisor (SFA), Sanitation Workers, Entomology Field Workers, Entomology Superior Field Workers, Supervisors (EFA), Superior Field Assistants within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. (e) the petitioners are entitled to minimum of time scale of pay attached to the posts of Sanitary Supervisor (SFA), Sanitation Workers. Entomology Field Workers, Entomology Superior Field Workers. (e) the petitioners are entitled to minimum of time scale of pay attached to the posts of Sanitary Supervisor (SFA), Sanitation Workers. Entomology Field Workers, Entomology Superior Field Workers. Supervisors (EFA), Superior Field Assistants in which they are now discharging their functions till their claim for regularisation is considered by the GHMC in accordance with para 53 of the decision in Uma Devi (1 supra); and such payments shall be made by the GHMC directly to the petitioners w.e.f the date of filing of this Writ petition (after deducting the payments already received by them during this period from the contractor/intermediary) and shall be continued till the cases of the petitioners are considered for regularisation by the GHMC. The arrears upto 31.7.2020 shall be paid on or before 15.9.2020. (c) I.A.No.1 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs. 9. The Division Bench of this Court dealing with an identical situation in W.P.Nos.5556, 8486 and 8968 of 2018 observed in the said judgment in particular, at paragraph Nos.9 to 12, as under: 9. “It is pertinent to note that in identical circumstances in W.P.No.26788 of 2017, wherein the persons, who were working in Kavali Municipality, sought minimum time scale of pay, this Court vide order dated 10.8.2017 held that the petitioners therein are entitled for grant of minimum time scale of pay and in addition to that, they are also entitled for grant of increments from time to time in the time scale of pay. But however, this Court in the above Writ Petition restricted the arrears only from the date of filing of the O.A. by the petitioners therein. 10. Apart from that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others1 considered the principle of equal pay for equal work and held that the persons who are discharging their duties on par with regular employees are entitled to the minimum scale of pay under the principle of equal pay for equal work. 11. In the light of the judgments referred to supra and in view of the fact that the services of the petitioners have been continued since two decades, we are of the view that the petitioners are entitled to minimum time scale of pay under the principle of equal pay for equal work, even though they were engaged by a private contractor. Therefore, the orders passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in O.A.No.3873 of 2014, dated 10.8.2017 and O.A.No.2369 of 2014 dated 6.7.2017, are set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant minimum time scale of pay to the petitioners and also to add annual grade increments as and when they fell due from time to time. However, the petitioners are entitled to all the arrears from the date of filing of the O.As before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.” 10. Learned Standing Counsel placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, does not dispute the fact that the petitioners are working in the respondent No.5-Municipal Corporation, but however the only plea taken for opposing the grant of reliefs as sought for by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that the petitioners are not regular employees working against sanctioned posts in the Badangpet Municipal Corporation. 11. This Court opines that the said pleas are not tenable in view of the observations of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the judgments referred to and extracted above. 12. 11. This Court opines that the said pleas are not tenable in view of the observations of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the judgments referred to and extracted above. 12. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned Standing Counsel for Shadnagar Municipality, Badangpet, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, c) The interim order dated 20.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.16210 of 2021(referred to and extracted above), d) The observations of the Apex Court and this Court in the various judgments(referred to and extracted above), The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the interim order passed by this Court dated 20.02.2023 directing the respondents to duly consider the request of the petitioners for payment of minimum regular time scale attached to their posts duly taking into consideration the law declared by the Apex Court in the State of Punjab Vs Jagjit Singh and others reported in ( 2017 SCC (1 ) 148) under the principles of Equal pay and Equal work duly taking into consideration the observations in the Judgments referred to and extracted above and as implemented in respect of the similarly situated persons like the petitioners in W.P.Nos.19132 and 20584 of 2019 and in W.P.No.6650 of 2018 and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.