ORDER This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the respondents in not paying to the petitioners Minimum Time Scale attached to the Post of Lecturer in Government Degree Colleges with effect from 01.04.2017 and not creating regular Post of Mentor in the Government Degree Colleges in the State of A.P as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to forthwith create regular Post of Mentor in the Government Degree Colleges and consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption as Mentors in the Government Degree Colleges with effect from 01.04.2017 and pay arrears of salary with effect from 01.04.2017 and further direct the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption as Lecturers in Government degree colleges and pay to the petitioners Minimum Time Scale attached to the Post of Lecturer in the Government degree colleges on par with other Contract Lecturers/Contract Employees attached to the Post of Government Degree College Lecturers till absorbing the petitioners as Regular Mentors after creation of the Post of Regular Mentor or against the Post of Lecturers in the government degree colleges and pass…”. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the A.P.C.C.E issued a Notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Mentor in Government Degree Colleges in the State of A.P. The qualification prescribed for the post of Mentor was equivalent to the post of lecturer in Government Degree Colleges. All the petitioners were selected through open competition notification given by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education and the petitioners were appointed by written test followed by interview conducted by committee for such posts. All the petitioners were appointed in the year 2007 onwards for the post of JKC full time mentor and there is no recruitment after 2014 for this post. Initially the authorities used to pay only Rs.8000 per month and the same was continued until 2017. Subsequently, the remuneration was increased from Rs.8000 to Rs.12000 with effect from 01.04.2017 and the authorities used to pay such salary/remuneration through treasury CFMS Head of account ie., on part with other regular employees. Initially the authorities used to pay only Rs.8000 per month and the same was continued until 2017. Subsequently, the remuneration was increased from Rs.8000 to Rs.12000 with effect from 01.04.2017 and the authorities used to pay such salary/remuneration through treasury CFMS Head of account ie., on part with other regular employees. While so, at every revised pay scales, the Government used to increase the salary to the contract lecturers by paying minimum time scale attached to the post of regular lecturers. But, though the mentors are providing more training skills to students than the other contract lecturers, the Government did not increase the remuneration to the members and not paying minimum time scale only on the ground that the post of mentor is not existing in the cadre and whereas the post of lecturer is existing in the cadre. Basing on the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent, dated 30.03.2019, 7 member committee submitted its report on 26.03.2019 recommending for extension of minimum time scale on par with contract lecturers of the Government Degree colleges to the JKC full time mentors on the condition laid down in G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 28.01.2019. The 2 nd respondent has not forwarded the said report to the 1 st respondent and has not implemented the recommendations made by the 7 member committee. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit was filed by Respondent No.2. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioners (Mentors/Full time mentors) are not engaged against sanctioned posts and hence they are not entitled for the benefit of payment attached to any sanctioned post. The mentors are engaged to work in non-sanctioned posts as per their willingness for a contract period of not more than 11 months in an academic year through agreement with the principles of respective colleges. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the mentors assist lecturers and they do not teach English language. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners i.e., Full time mentors are re-engaged every year for a 10/11 month period by entering into agreement with the principal of college and performance report is mandated in the agreement before reengagement. The petitioners willingness is taken before re-engaging them for the next academic year. The confidential report comprising of recommendations of the committee were submitted to the Government. The petitioners willingness is taken before re-engaging them for the next academic year. The confidential report comprising of recommendations of the committee were submitted to the Government. However, the Government has rejected the minimum time scale to the mentors from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.21,500/- w.e.f. 10.06.2022 on par with ‘outsourcing data processing officers’ of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Rt.No.95 Higher Education (CE) Department, dated 10.06.2022. The mentors are treated on par with outsourcing data processing officers and therefore minimum time scale attached to the post of lecturer is not admissible in case of mentors. 4. Heard Smt Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 7 member committee submitted its report on 26.03.2019 recommending for extension of minimum time scale on par with contract lecturers of the Government Degree colleges to the JKC full time mentors on the condition laid down in G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 28.01.2019. But, the 1 st respondent has not implemented the recommendations made by the 7 member committee and has not paid minimum time scale to the petitioners on par with Government Degree College Lecturers. 6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.10956 of 2018. Relevant paragraphs of the said order, read as follows:- 8. The daily wagers relied upon a judgment of this Court in Putti Lal (supra) and submitted that the same relief may be extended to them. It is relevant to note that the judgment in Putti Lal (supra) relates to a dispute similar to that involved in this case. Daily rated wage earners in the Forest Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh approached the High Court for regularization of their services. The Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad directed the State Government to constitute the Committee as directed in order to frame the scheme for regularization. The judgment of the High Court that the daily rated wage workers shall be paid at the minimum of the pay scales was affirmed by this Court on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The judgment of the High Court that the daily rated wage workers shall be paid at the minimum of the pay scales was affirmed by this Court on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Division Bench of the High Court while deciding Special Appeal No.1530 of 2007 referred to the judgment in Putti Lal (supra) but placed reliance on a later judgment of this Court Tilak Raj (supra). The Division Bench of the High Court also cited the case of Surjit Singh (supra) to hold that the daily wagers cannot seek the benefit of the judgment of Putti Lal (supra) case in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court wherein, according to the High Court, it was held that daily wage employees were not entitled to the minimum of the pay scales. 9. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) held as follows: “ 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self- respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.” 10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow these Appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court holding that the Appellants are entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees working on the same posts. The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to make payment of the minimum of pay scales to the Appellants with effect from 1 st December, 2018. 7. Whereas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the issue of minimum time scale has surfaced with the extension of Minimum Time Scales to the contract Lecturers working against sanctioned posts as per G.O.Ms.No.12 Finance Department, dated 28.01.2019. Since the mentors are neither engaged against Sanctioned posts nor are contract lecturers G.O.Ms.No.12 is not applicable to the case of the petitioners and hence, minimum time scale was not implemented to the mentors. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that after submission of 7 member committee report, the confidential report was submitted to the Government. Thereafter, the Government has rejected the minimum time scale to the mentors and has increased the remuneration of full time mentors from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.21,500/- w.e.f. 10.06.2022 on par with ‘outsourcing data processing officers’ of AP vide G.O.Rt.No.95 of the Higher Education (CE) Department, dated 10.06.2022. Hence, the learned Government Pleader contends that the mentors are treated on par with ‘Outsourcing Data Processing Officers’ and therefore Minimum time Scale attached to the post of lecturer. Therefore, requests to dismiss the Writ Petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. On perusal of the record, it is observed that, all the petitioners herein are selected through Open Competition notification given by Commissioner of Collegiate Education and they were appointed by written test followed by interview conducted by the Committee for such posts. Admittedly th post of Mentor is existing for the last 15 years and admittedly because of special training provide by Mentors to students to were studying in the Government degree colleges, ae doing well not only in academic examinations but also in competitive examinations and developed special skills in all aspects, including English language. 10. Admittedly th post of Mentor is existing for the last 15 years and admittedly because of special training provide by Mentors to students to were studying in the Government degree colleges, ae doing well not only in academic examinations but also in competitive examinations and developed special skills in all aspects, including English language. 10. It is the contention of the petitioners that, at every revised pay scales, the Government used to increase the salary to the contract lecturers by paying Minimum Time scale attached to the post of Regular Lecturers following principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Moreover, the Government did not increase the remuneration to the Mentors and not paying Minimum Time Scale only on the ground that the post of Mentor is not existing in the cadre and whereas the post of Lecturer is existing in the cadre which is nothing but arbitrary. 11. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a case of Kodali Raju and Others v. APSRTC, Hyderabad and Others” , [ 2011(1) ALD 234 ] , wherein it was held as follows:- “18…..Here it is a case of casual appointment and may not be through selection process. It can at best be said to be an irregular appointment, but not an illegal appointment. The sweeping and cleaning of buses is a perennial work attached to the main activity of the Corporation. Since the petitioners have been treated as working continuously for more than 10 years, regularization of their services have to be considered in the light of the said judgment. During the years 2004 and 2010, more than 4000 posts were sanctioned by the Government for regularizing the services of temporary/ contract employees working in the Corporation. The judgment rendered in Umadevi’s case further was explained in State of Karnataka v. L. Kesari (supra), wherein it is stated that the true effect of the direction at paragraph 53 of judgment in Umadevi case is that all persons who have worked for more than 10 years as on 10.04.2006 without the protection of any interim order of any Court or Tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The continuation of petitioners in the Corporation of petitioners in the Corporation for the last more than 21 years itself can be construed that there are vacant posts available and the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services and to be put on regular timescale.” (ii) In another case reported in “C. Mahender and Others v. Pottisreeramulu Telugu University, Hyderabad”, 2020(4) ALD 379 (TS) (DB) , wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court for the State of Telangana, held as follows:- 45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. ….. 48. It is not known why the 1st respondent has not followed the decision in Umadevi’s case (supra), as explained in M.L.Kesari’s case (supra) and undertaken a one-time exercise of preparing the list of daily wage employees, who had worked for more than ten (10) years without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 10.04.2006 and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess requisite qualifications for the posts, and if so, regularize their services.” (iii) In another case, the composite High Court at Hyderabad in V.S.R. Prasad and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another”, 2018(2) ALD 282 (DB) wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench held as follows:- 10. From the material discussed above and the admissions made in use counter- affidavit of respondent No.2, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have been working as Work Inspectors from the years 1990-1992. It is also not in dispute that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered in the year 1996, they have completed more than 10 years of service. Para 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), reads as under: "One aspect needs to be clarified. It is also not in dispute that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered in the year 1996, they have completed more than 10 years of service. Para 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), reads as under: "One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.Narayanappa, 1967 (1) SCR 128 ; R.N.Nanjundappa, (1972) 1 SCC 409 and B.N.Nagarajan, (1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in Para 15 above of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one- time measure, the the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of-Tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date." 11. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioners fully satisfied the criteria laid down in the abave reproduced Para in Uma Devi's case (supra). But, as noted herein before, they have taken the stand that as Act 2 of 1994 governs the services of the petitioners, unless the latter satisfy the requirement of completing 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993, they are not entitled to be considered for regularisation. 12. In State of Karnataka v. M.L Kesari (supra), a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has explained the true purport of the directions contained in Para $3 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), in the below reproduced part of the judgment 5. 12. In State of Karnataka v. M.L Kesari (supra), a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has explained the true purport of the directions contained in Para $3 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), in the below reproduced part of the judgment 5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularization' enunciated in Umadevi's case (supra), if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in July sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or Tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointment are not made or continued sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointment are considered to be regular....” 16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 cf 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various Stare enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/ absorption exist. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/ absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1594 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, do Work Inspectors not whittle down the width and the judgment in ManjulaBashini's case (supra), does to their satisfying not lower the trajectory of the directions Para No.53 of its judgment in Uma devi’s case (supra). It is therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 19 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny regularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). 12). Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the petitioners have long service for about 10 years and above in the Corporation and discharging their duties without any interruption and the same was recommended for consideration of regularization. It is further argued that there are number of vacancies in the department/ corporation, therefore, repeated requests were made on several occasions for legalization in the vacant posts by considering their eligibility, though the petitioners are qualified and suitable. 13. In similar circumstances, this Court in batch of writ petition vide W.P.No.5009 of 2021 & batch, the petitioners therein have preferred an application before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2366 of 2017 for regularization of petitioners services from the date of completion of 10 years of service as held by this Court in W.P.No.24377 of 2007, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.782 of 2010 followed by the Apex Court Judgments. 14. Further, in similar circumstances of this case, the High Court for the State of Telangana in Pottisreeramulu Telugu University’s Case (cited supra) held that the petitioners therein have been working on daily wage since 1990 (30 years of service by then) have been given minimum time scale from the year 2000. In the instant case, the petitioners were allowed to draw the time scale and they are getting all the benefits on par with the regular employees, but except their services not being regularized, which is only the issue involved in this writ petition. The same principle would squarely applies to this case. 15. In the instant case, the petitioners were allowed to draw the time scale and they are getting all the benefits on par with the regular employees, but except their services not being regularized, which is only the issue involved in this writ petition. The same principle would squarely applies to this case. 15. Having regard to facts and circumstances, following the decisions referred to above, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, while declaring the action of the respondents in not paying to the petitioners Minimum Time scale attached to the post of Lecturer in Government Degree Colleges with effect from 1.4.2017 and not creating regular post of Mentor in the Government Degree Colleges in the State of A.P., as illegal and arbitrary. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and directed to pay the Minimum Time scale attached to the post of Lecturer in the Government Degree Colleges with effect from 1.4.2017 and also directed to pay arrears of salary w.e.f. 01.04.2017. The respondents are further directed to consider the cases of petitioners on par with other contract lecturers/contract employees attached to the post of Government Degree college Lecturers till absorbing the petitioners as regular Mentors, after creation of the post of regular Mentor as against the post of Lecturer in Government degree college. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.