ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J This Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings dated 21.02.2018 issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda as arbitrary. Consequently, a direction is sought to set aside the same and hold petitioners entitled for granting minimum time scale of pay attached to their respective posts with consequential and attendant benefits including absorption / regularisation of their services in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] . 2. The case of petitioners is that they were appointed in their respective posts in the combined Nalgonda District based on Gram Panchayat Resolutions with effect from 15-12-1984, 14-06-1983, 01-05-1988, 06-10-1988, 01-04-1988, 28-05-1988, 19-09-1988, 02-08-1987, 01-10-1988, 01-06-1988, 19-09-1988, 19-04-1988 and 12-07-1988 respectively, and all these appointments were made on consolidated basis. Petitioners have been serving continuously for more than 29 to 33 years in their respective posts, however, they are still being continued on consolidated pay with meagre wages without being extended the benefit of minimum time scale of pay. 2.1 It is stated, all the petitioners possess the requisite qualifications to hold the posts they are working in and over the decades, they gained substantial experience in their posts. Earlier, the Government had taken a policy decision to ratify appointments made by the Sarpanch during the period 06-02-1981 to 31-05-1982, as a consequence, several persons who were appointed during the said period were absorbed. Further, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 239, dated 08-08-2011, ratifying the appointments made by the then Sarpanch for the period 06-02-1981 to 31-05-1982. Since petitioners were appointed later to the aforesaid period, their services were not ratified, and they were continued on consolidated pay. Despite making several representations to the authorities requesting absorption on a regular basis, no action has been taken. They have not been granted even the minimum time scale of pay attached to their posts, despite performing duties identical to their regular counterparts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh , 2017 (1) SCC 148 categorically held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” applies to temporary employees, including daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, casual employees, contractual employees and others, thereby vesting in them the right to claim wages on par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees. Petitioners state that being qualified and eligible to hold their respective posts, they are entitled to minimum time scale of pay in terms of the said judgment. 2.2. Petitioners further submit that in similar set of facts, considering the judgment in Jagjit Singh’s case , this Court directed respondents to examine whether petitioners therein were discharging the same duties and responsibilities and whether they were qualified to hold the regular post and if both parameters were satisfied, to grant them minimum time scale of pay. The Court also directed that the said exercise be completed within four weeks. The petitioners submit that their case is similar and they are seeking similar reliefs. 2.3. Apart from the above, petitioners also place reliance on G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated 22-04-1994 and G.O.(P) No. 112, dated 23-08-1997, wherein directions were issued to regularize the services of full-time/part-time employees who had completed 5 or 10 years of service. Petitioners state that having completed more than 29 to 33 years of service, they are squarely entitled for absorption and regularization of their services in terms of the said policy decisions and also in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s Case and other judgments, which recognized the rights of employees similarly situated. Yet, despite these clear directions and policies, the respondents are continuing to keep them on petty wages for more than three decades. 3. In the Counter Affidavit, the District Panchayat Officer stated that petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for as their appointments were not made against sanctioned posts nor with prior approval of competent authorities. It is stated that the 1 st petitioner was appointed as part-time Bill Collector by the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Boyagudem vide order dated 14-06-1983 with a fixed pay of Rs. 60/- per month. His appointment was made without post sanction and without obtaining prior permission from higher authorities. As per the acquaintance roll available, the said individual is now being paid Rs. 1,000/- per month in terms of resolution dated 08-10-2013. Similarly placed are the other petitioners. 3.1. It is specifically pointed out that Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats are not competent to make such appointments during the year 1988, as the District Panchayat Officer concerned was the competent authority to appoint all full-time, part-time and NMR employees in Gram Panchayats in terms of G.O.Ms. Similarly placed are the other petitioners. 3.1. It is specifically pointed out that Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats are not competent to make such appointments during the year 1988, as the District Panchayat Officer concerned was the competent authority to appoint all full-time, part-time and NMR employees in Gram Panchayats in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 174 dated 21-03-1988 read with G.O.Ms. No. 138 dated 16-03-1982. Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 278 dated 01-05-1987 ratifying appointments made by Sarpanch between 06-02-1981 and 31-05-1982 in the time scale attached to the respective posts. Pursuant thereto, Government Memo dated 03-06-1988 was issued informing all District Collectors to furnish details of remaining appointments made by Sarpanch during that period for ratification. After receipt of information, Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 557 dated 16-09-1989 ratifying further appointments made during the period 06-02-1981 to 31-05-1982. 3.2. It is explained that certain employees similarly situated whose names were omitted from G.O.Ms. No. 278 and G.O.Ms. No. 557 approached the Administrative Tribunal in 2002 and secured orders directing their cases to be considered. Consequently, proposals of 26 eligible applicants who were appointed in time scale during 06-02-1981 to 31-05-1982 were forwarded to Government through Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Hyderabad, and Government ratified their services vide G.O.Ms. No. 239, dated 08-08-2011 from the date of their initial appointment. However, in the instant case, petitioners (01 to 08 and 11 to 13) were appointed in 1988 on part-time basis with fixed pay, not in time scale, and not during 06-02-1981 to 31-05-1982. Hence they are not similarly situated to those covered by G.O.Ms. No. 278, G.O.Ms. No. 557 and G.O.Ms. No. 239. Therefore, their proposals were not submitted for ratification and the question of ratification does not arise. 3.3. It is further stated that Government formulated a scheme under G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22-04-1994 and G.O.(P) No. 112 dated 23-07-1997 for regularization of irregularly appointed part-time/full-time/NMR employees working in Gram Panchayats or other departments. Under G.O.Ms. No. 212, full- time/NMR employees completing 5 years of full-time service as on 25-11-1993 were eligible for regularization. Under G.O.(P) No. 112 dated 23-07-1997, part-time/full-time/NMR employees completing 10 years of part-time service as on 25-11-1993 were to be considered for regularization subject to seniority and availability of vacancies. Under G.O.Ms. No. 212, full- time/NMR employees completing 5 years of full-time service as on 25-11-1993 were eligible for regularization. Under G.O.(P) No. 112 dated 23-07-1997, part-time/full-time/NMR employees completing 10 years of part-time service as on 25-11-1993 were to be considered for regularization subject to seniority and availability of vacancies. It is further stated that this Court on 27-12-2017 directed respondents to examine whether petitioners were discharging same duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Bill Collector or their respective regular posts and if qualified, to grant minimum time scale of pay. Accordingly, upon verification of service particulars, it was observed that petitioners 01 to 08 and 11 to 13, all part-time workers, were not discharging the same duties and responsibilities as those attached to regular posts. Further, grant of time scale of pay can only be made after regularization under G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22-04-1994 and G.O.(P) No. 112 dated 23-07-1997, subject to eligibility, seniority and vacancies, treating the District as a unit. 3.4. It is pointed out that 1445 part-time workers were working in Gram Panchayats of erstwhile Nalgonda District appointed before 25-11-1993 under Act 2 of 1994. In the seniority list, petitioners stand at Sl. Nos. 247, 265, 646, 889, 547, 690, 893, 332, 891, 610 and 778. Till now, only 95 part- time workers have been regularized as per eligibility, seniority and vacancies under G.O.(P) No. 112 dated 23-07-1997 and were granted time scale of pay. Therefore, the case of the 1st petitioern and 10 others was examined as per orders dated 27-12-2017 with reference to G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22-04- 1994 and G.O.(P) No. 112 dated 23-07-1997, and it was found that they do not fall under the said G.Os. Hence their plea was rejected by speaking order dated 21-02-2018. 4. Heard Sri D. Bala Kishan Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-II on behalf of respondents. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel and perusing the pleadings and material placed, the following aspects arise for consideration. First, whether petitioners, who have been continuously engaged for decades and discharging functions of Bill Collectors and other analogous posts in Gram Panchayats, are entitled to the minimum of the time scale of pay attached to the posts by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work” as laid down in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra). First, whether petitioners, who have been continuously engaged for decades and discharging functions of Bill Collectors and other analogous posts in Gram Panchayats, are entitled to the minimum of the time scale of pay attached to the posts by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work” as laid down in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra). Secondly, whether respondents’ rejection under Memo impugned and the stand that grant of time scale necessarily pre-supposes regularization under G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22-04-1994 and G.O.(P) No. 112 dated 23-07-1997 can be sustained. Thirdly, in the backdrop of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5580 of 2024), whether the long and uninterrupted service of petitioners can be brushed aside by the mere labels of part-time or consolidated appointments, in the absence of any material of illegality or surreptitious entry. 6. On the first aspect, the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra) authoritatively settled that temporary employees performing similar duties as those discharged by regular employees are entitled to wages at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post. The exposition underscores that in a welfare State, an employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities, and that the principle vests a clear and unambiguous right even in temporary employees, subject to reasonable comparability of duties and responsibilities with those of the reference cadre. This is a binding enunciation. Petitioners have pleaded that their duties as Bill Collectors, are identical to those discharged by regular counterparts. The Counter Affidavit merely asserts, after a verification exercise, that the petitioners were not discharging the same duties and responsibilities as those attached to regular posts, but it does not disclose any particulars or metrics of comparison, nor does it place on record any duty chart, schedule, or functional analysis distinguishing the tasks performed by the petitioners from those of regular employees in the same Gram Panchayats. In such circumstances, and keeping in view the long tenure of 29 to 33 years, the very nature of the posts held (Bill Collection and allied clerical/record functions in Gram Panchayats), the absence of adverse material on performance, and the admitted fact that the Gram Panchayats have been extracting work on a continuing basis from the petitioners and remunerating them under various Gram Panchayat resolutions, the plea that they do not perform comparable duties is an ipse dixit and cannot prevail over the petition averments and the reality of the work situation. The principle in Jagjit Singh is, therefore, attracted. 7. On the second aspect, respondents argue that petitioners’ appointments were not against sanctioned posts and without prior approval and that grant of time scale can only follow regularization under G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22-04-1994 and G.O.(P) No. 112 dated 23-07-1997, subject to eligibility, seniority and vacancies. Here it is to be noted, parity of pay at the minimum of pay scale, where comparable work is established, does not depend upon whether original engagement was against a sanctioned post or upon prior regularization; it depends upon functional parity and is intended to obviate unconstitutional discrimination in pay for equal work. The jurisprudence in Jagjit Singh ’s case has recognized that the claim for minimum of pay-scale rests on Article 14 and Article 39(d) as read into service law, and is available even to temporary employees, without the necessity of first being regularized. To insist on prior regularization as a condition precedent to equal pay would nullify the constitutional guarantee and invert the scheme of equality. The respondents’ verification leading to Memo dated 21-02-2018 does not demonstrate how petitioners’ duties are materially inferior or dissimilar to those of regular Bill Collectors and analogous cadre. The speaking order is thus unsustainable on this ground alone. 8. On the third aspect, the reliance placed by petitioners on Jaggo’s case (supra) is apposite. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 emphasized that ‘long and uninterrupted service for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route’. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route’. The Court distinguished between ‘illegal’ and ‘irregular’ appointments and deprecated a mechanical resort to labels to defeat legitimate claims where the factual matrix shows continuity, indispensability of the role, and absence of taint. This articulation in para 10 fortifies the petitioners’ case that decades of continuous service in core municipal functions like bill collection and record assistance cannot be ignored on the ground that initial orders were issued by Sarpanch or that prior permission was not obtained. The later portions of the same judgment clarified that governmental departments must lead by example in fair and stable employment and that engaging workers on temporary basis for extended periods when their roles are integral undermines legal standards and invites challenge. While the fact situation there involved termination orders, the principles articulated as to long service, integral roles and the distinction between illegality and irregularity, and the remedial orientation towards fair employment practices, are of direct relevance to the present controversy. 9. The respondents’ heavy reliance on the incompetence of Sarpanch post G.O.Ms. No. 174 dated 21-03- 1988 read with G.O.Ms. No. 138 dated 16-03-1982, and on the restrictive windows in G.O.Ms. No. 278 dated 01-05-1987, Government Memo dated 03-06-1988, G.O.Ms. No. 557 dated 16-09-1989, and G.O.Ms. No. 239 dated 08-08-2011 meant for ratification of appointments made during 06-02-1981 to 31-05- 1982, is not determinative of the equal pay claim. Those instruments concern ratification and regularization; they do not derogate from the constitutional command against unequal pay for equal work. The petitioners do not claim to be within those ratification windows; rather, they seek parity of pay and consideration for regularization under the later comprehensive schemes. As to regularization, the State’s own schemes under G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22-04-1994 and G.O.(P) No. 112 dated 23-07-1997, and the statutory framework of Act 2 of 1994, contemplate regularization of irregularly appointed full-time and part-time employees upon satisfaction of the stipulated conditions, seniority and availability of vacancies, treating the District as a unit. As to regularization, the State’s own schemes under G.O.Ms. No. 212 dated 22-04-1994 and G.O.(P) No. 112 dated 23-07-1997, and the statutory framework of Act 2 of 1994, contemplate regularization of irregularly appointed full-time and part-time employees upon satisfaction of the stipulated conditions, seniority and availability of vacancies, treating the District as a unit. The presence of a seniority queue of 1445 part-time workers and the petitioners’ serial numbers therein (247, 265, 646, 889, 547, 690, 893, 332, 891, 610 and 778) and the statement that only 95 have been regularized so far, are matters relevant to the pace of regularization; they cannot be used to deny the constitutional relief of equal pay. For the relief of regularization, the correct course is to direct a time-bound reconsideration in the light of the governing schemes and the principles in Jaggo ’ s case, without rejecting merely on the ground of initial engagement being by Sarpanch or for want of prior permission, in the absence of any taint of fraud or surreptitious entry. The contemporaneous materials on G.O.Ms. No. 212 and G.O.(P) No. 112, including the official PDFs, reinforce that these were remedial, one-time schemes designed to address precisely such long-service irregular engagements, and their application must be in letter and spirit. 10. Respondents’ additional contention that this Court on 27-12-2017 directed an examination and pursuant thereto, the impugned Memo was issued rejecting the claim, does not assist them. The subsequent speaking order has to withstand scrutiny on its own merits. For reasons indicated—absence of any comparative analysis, the long and continuous service spanning three decades in core Gram Panchayat functions, and the binding principles in the judgments referred to supra, rejection is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The petitioners’ right to the minimum of the time scale of pay attached to their posts stands established on the record placed. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to absorb/regularise the services of petitioners and extend the minimum of the time scale of pay attached to their respective posts from 26-10-2016, the date of the judgment in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh , together with all consequential allowances admissible within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If payment is not made within the said period, the arrears shall thereafter carry simple interest at 6% per annum until actual payment. If payment is not made within the said period, the arrears shall thereafter carry simple interest at 6% per annum until actual payment. No costs. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.