Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 806 (AP)

K. Bhaskara, S/o. Venkataswamy v. State of AP

2025-07-02

CHALLA GUNARANJAN

body2025
ORDER: CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. The present writ petition is filed assailing the action of respondents in not extending minimum time scale of pay to petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.142, Finance (HR.I-Plg. & Policy) Department, dated 27.08.2018, and Proceedings No.C/01/Daily Wages/2022, dated 01.11.2022, issued by the 3 rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioners are working in 3 rd respondent College as Suppliers and Cleaners on daily wage basis. They have been paid from 16.09.2013 fixed salary of Rs.10,000/- per month in terms of Memo.No.B1/18028/2012, dated 16.09.2013, issued by the 2 nd respondent. Later, their cases were considered for payment of minimum time scale and the same got fixed as Rs.24.524/- per month from January, 2023 and were paid accordingly for some time. However, from September, 2023, abruptly 3 rd respondent stopped paying the same, but, they were being paid only Rs.15,000/- per month. Petitioners, therefore, immediately made representation, dated 17.10.2023, to 3 rd respondent for extending minimum time scale. As petitioners’ case is not being considered for extending the said benefit, present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri T.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though petitioners are working on daily wage basis, they are entitled to be considered for payment of minimum time scale and has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 14 therefore, petitioners cannot be denied the said benefit. He also contended that petitioners are continuing to work in the 3 rd respondent College and even their cases were recommended for regularisation by 3 rd respondent by proceedings, dated 07.06.2013, having extended minimum time scale from January, 2023, they are precluded from abruptly withdrawing the said benefits. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents, opposing the aforesaid submission, 8 while reiterating the contents of the counter-affidavit, contended that as petitioners are working on daily wage basis, they are not entitled for minimum time scale. He further contended that petitioners suppressing their age and service particulars before cut-off date i.e. 25.11.1993, claimed for minimum time scale, and inadvertently without verifying the same, earlier time scale was extended to them and having later realised the mistake committed, the respondents have withdrawn the said benefit. He further contended that petitioners suppressing their age and service particulars before cut-off date i.e. 25.11.1993, claimed for minimum time scale, and inadvertently without verifying the same, earlier time scale was extended to them and having later realised the mistake committed, the respondents have withdrawn the said benefit. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the same. 6. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both parties. 7. Petitioners are all working on daily wage basis in respect of posts with 3 rd respondent College. Even the counter-affidavit also does not dispute the factum of their services, however, it is claimed in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners have been engaged on different dates from 2002 to 2019. Counter-affidavit proceeds on the premise that for the purpose of extending the minimum time scale, one should have been appointed before the cut-off date i.e. 25.11.1993 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 27.08.2018. No doubt, aforesaid G.O. stipulates that the Government has extended the time scale to all those full-time/NMR/Daily Wages/Consolidated Pay/Part- time employees/Masalchies, who were appointed before 25.11.1993, but, by considering the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagjit Singh ,(2017) 1 SCC 14 it has been clearly held that even daily wage employees are also to be put on same pedestal on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” and are entitled for minimum time scale. Paras.57 and 58 of the said judgment read as follows: “ 57. There is no room for any doubt that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle have been summarised by us in para 42 hereinabove. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily wage, casual, ad hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees has been summarised by us, in para 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us yet again. 58. The legal position, relating to temporary employees has been summarised by us, in para 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us yet again. 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.” 8. In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have continued to work with 3 rd respondent on daily wage basis, the writ petition has to succeed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay minimum time scale to the petitioners from September, 2023 onwards, and arrears of the same are directed to be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.