Allowed

A Rajasekhar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Nov 2024WP/1068/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Panchayat Secretaries working on par with regular employees but continued only on tribunal interim orders sought refixation of pay in the 2015 revised pay scales with arrears. The Court held they were entitled to minimum pay scale as per the 2015 Pay Revision Commission recommendations, set aside the impugned treasury memo dated 27.11.2019, and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Memo dated 27.11.2019 set aside; respondents to revise and refix petitioners' pay per G.O.Ms.No.46 dated 30.04.2015 with consequential benefits w.e.f. 02.06.2014 including arrears within four

A Rajasekhar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR m X .
ill’
u.
o<br>PRESENT oc//

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶4

1-'

¶5

Bet	WRIT PETITION NO: 1068 OF 2021 ween:
1.	A.Rajasekhar Reddy S/o late Ramachandra Age 51 years, working as Panchayat Secretary Shakaraju PalleGram Panchayat Sidhout Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, Reddy,
2.	P.Chandriisekhar Reddy S/o late VenkatReddy, age 53 Years, Occ: Panchayat Secretary, Badripalli G.P,, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District.
3.	A.Narayan Reddy S/o late Pulla Reddy, Age about 49 years,,working Panchayat Secretary Dumpalagattu Gram Panchayat, Kajipet mandal, Kadapa District.
4.	R.VeerasekharReddy S/q late Veera Reddy, age 51 years Panchayat Secretary, Verrpally G.P., Badvel Mandal Kadapa district.
5	A-¥®^4takrjsl?na Reddy S/o Balasubbareddy, -D4:ge 53; yea^,:.wdfking as Panchayat■Secretary, Komrnrnadi Gram Phnchayat, Veerapanayini Palli Mandal Kadapa District
6.	B.EswarReddyS/o late Gljenna Reddy, 51 years, Panchayat Secretary, Yellareddypalli Karaalapuram Mandal,.Kadapa District. G.P.,
7.	G.Srinivasulu S/o late Ghinna Reddy, age 52 Panchayat Secretary Kalwapally G P. Qopavaram Mandal Kadapa District. yeai's.
8	- E.Moses S/o late Benjimen, age 53 years, '^Panchayat Secretary, Brahmanapalli G.P., Gopavaram Mandal, Y,S,R.Kadapa Dist.
9.	C.SivaKumar S/o late Saidbaiah, age 48 years, Panchayat Secretary, Madhavaram-i: G P Sidhout Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. ’
10,	S.Venkatalakshumamma W/o Sriramulu Panchayat Secretary, Munejli G.P., B.KoduruMandal,Y.SiR„Kadapa. ’ age 57 years.

T''’

•W.

«■

i-.

11.	M.Mallikarjuna S/o late M.Mallaiah, age 57 years, Panchayat Secretary, Buggalappalli G.P., C.K. Dinne Mandal.Y.S.R.Kadapa District.
12	P.Venkataramana S/o late Veera Reddy, age 47 years, Panchayat Secretary, Onipenta Gram Panchayat, Mydukur Mandal, Kadapa district.
13.	P.Venkataramanaiah S/o Chinna Subbarayudu, age 57 years, Panchayat Secretary, Mallepalli Gram Panchayat, Bhimavattam mandal Kadapa district.
14.	M.Veerabhadrudu S/o Chinna pothuluru, age 59 years, Panchayat Secretary, Yerraballi G.P., Pulivendla Mandal, Kadapa district.
15.	D.Gulam Mahaboob S/o late Mohidin sahib age 56 years, Panchayat Secretary, Dobbudupalli G.P., Kondapuram Mandal,=Kadapa district.
16.	V.Lakshmipathy S/o Balaiah age 54 years, Panchayat Secretary, Yellaturu G.P., Pendlimarri Manda;!, Kadapa District,
17.	T.Venkata Subbaiah S/o Venkateshwarlu, Age 48 years, Panphayat Secretary, Atluru G.P., Atloor Mandal, Kaclapa district, .'h/' r'
18.	B,Venkata Subbaiah S/o late Venkata Subbaiah, age 48 years, Panchayat Secretary, S.Upphlapadu GP., Jammalamadugu Mandal, Kadapa District,
19.	P.Peddagurappa S/o late Pedda Seshanna, age 5 1 years, Panchayat Secretary, Chagaleru G.P. Vemula Mandal, Kadapa District.
20.	H.Gangadhar S/o Subbanna age 50 years, Panchayat Secretary, Konduru G.P., Penagalur Mandal, Kadapa district.
21.	A.Sivapothuluraiah S/o late Veeraiah, age 53 years, Panchayat Secretary, Thippanapalli Gram Panchayat Badvel Mandal, Kadapa district.
22.	S.Chennarayudu S/o S.Chennaiah, age 51 years, Panchayat Secretary, Ghintalacheruvupalli G.P., BadvelMandal,Kadapadistrict.

¶12

¶13

¶14

23.	B .Mallikarjuna S/o late Narayana, age 49 years, Panchayat Secretary, Rachapalli G.P., Ramapuram Mandal, Kadapa District.
24.	L.Chandrudu S/o late Balaiah, age 48 years, Panchayat Secretary, Peddiveedu Gram Panchayat, Veerapalli Mandal,Kadapa Dist,
25.	K.Gangadhar S/o late Pedda Balanna, age 60 years, Panchayat Secretary, Sunnapurallapalli G.P., Jammalamadugu Mandal, Kadapa Dist.
26.	N.Kasaiah S/o late Chinna Kasaiah, age 54 years, Panchayat Secretary, Ganugapenta G.P., Korumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District.
27.	E.S.Nagi Reddy S/o E.S.Nagi Reddy, age 55 years, Panchayat Secretary, Vodiveedu G.P., Veerapalli Mandal, Kadapa district.
28.	K.Venkataiah S/o K.Subbanna, age 53 years, Panchayat Secretary, Chiyyapadu G.P., Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa district.
29.	V.Nasaraiah S/o late Narsaiah, age 50 years, Panchayat Secretary, N.Palagiri Gram Panchayat, Veerapunayini Palli Mandal, Kadapa district.
30.	B.P.Venkataiah S/o late B .Venkataiah, aged about 50 years, Panchayat Secretary, Rajukunta Gram Panchayat, Chitwel Mandal, Kadapa Dist.
31.	K.Nagasubba Reddy S/o late Bala Ankireddy, age 53 years, Panchayat Secretary, Moilakalwa G.P., Pendlimarri Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.
32.	K.Lakshma Rao S/o K.Pullaiah, age 53 years, Panchayat Secretary, Alireddypalli village, Vempalli Mandal, Kadapa Dist.
33.	S.Abdul Razzack S/o late Jaffer sahib age about 50 years, Panchayat Secretary,,Chamallapalli G.P., Khajipet Mandal, Kadapa district.
34.	P.Divakar S/o late Chennaiah, age 51 years, Panchayat Secretary, Beduduru G.P., Kondapuram Mandal,Kadapa district.
35.	K.Srinivasulu S/o K.Venkatanna, age 49 years Panchayat Secretary, Yutur G.P., KhajipetMandal,KadapaDistrict.

¶15

•i

¶16

¶17

36.	B,S,M Nagendra Ra'o S/6 B.S.Sangameshwara, age 55 yrs, Panchayat Secretary, Gurazala G.P., Simhadripuram Mandal, Kadapa district.
37.	T^Venkateshwarlu S/o late T.Subbanna, age 46 years, Panchayat Secretary, Gdturu G.P., Thonduru Mandal'; Kadapa; district. .. .Petitioners And
1.	The State ofAndhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi.
2.	The Commissioner, P.R. & R.D. Department, Tadepalli, Guntur, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh State
3.	The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.,by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi,
	The Director, Treasury, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh State.
5.	The District Collector, Y.S.R. Kadapa district, Kadapa-516 001, Andhra Pradesh State
6.	The Deputy Director, Treasury Officer, AtKadapa,YSRKadapaDistrict,AndhraPradeshState

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more^{particularlyoneinthe} nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the Respondents to revise and refix the pay of the Petitioners^asperthePay Revision Commission recommendations issued in G.O.Ms.No. 46, Finance (HRM.V-PC) Department, dated 30-4-2015 and revise the pay of the Petitioners in the revised pay scales of 2015 with consequential monetary benefits w.e.f. 2-6-2014 with arrears of salaries and to grant the same keeping in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme^Court of India reported in 2017 SCC Pg. 148 in the matter of State^of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others and setting aside the Memo No. PIN-0218024/6/2019-H SEC-DTA, dated 27-11-2019 issued by the 4'^ Respondent herein and declare the action of the Respondents in not revising and refixing the pay of the Petitioners in the revised pay scales^{of2015asperG.O.Ms.} NO. 46, Finance (HRM.V-PC) Department, dated 30-4-2015 as being arbitrary illegal unconstitutional besides violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and the action of the Respondents is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reportedⁱⁿ 2017 SCC^Pg. 148 in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to grant to revise and refix the pay of the Petitioners as per the Revision of Pay scales of 2015^issued in G.O. Ms. NO. 46, Finance (HRM.V-PC) Department, dated 30-4-2015 keeping in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2017 SCC Pg. 148 in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others with consequential benefits by suspending^theMemoNo. PIN-

¶23

■Wi

¶24

th 02-18024/6/2019-H SEC-DTA, dated 2711-2019 issued by the 4 Respondent.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI R V MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1 ^ IV

¶28

The Court made the following order:

APHC010013582021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶33

[3310]

¶34

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶35

FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶36

PRESENT•

¶37

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO: 1068 OF 2021

¶39

Between:

¶40

A Rajasekhar Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER{S)

¶41

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S)

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶43

R V MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶45

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶46

2.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶47

3.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶48

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶49

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶50

seeking the following relief:

¶51

“ to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to revise and refix the pay of the petitioners as per the Pay Revision Commission recommendations^issuedin G.O.Ms.No. 46, Finance (HRM.V-PC) Department, dated^{30.04.2015and} revise the pay of the Petitioners in the revised pay^scales of 2015 with consequential monetary benefits w.e.f 02.06.2014 with^{arrearsofsalariesand}

¶52

¶53

to grant the same keeping in view of the Judgment of^{theHon’bleSupreme} Court of India reported in 2017 SCC Pg.148 in the matter of State of Punjab and others v. Jagjit Singh and Others and setting aside^{theMemoNo.PIN-} 02-18024/6/2019-H SEC-DTA, dated 27.11.2019 issued by the 4"’ respondent herein and declare the action of the Respondents in not revising and refixing the pay of the Petitioners in the revised pay scales of 2015 as per G.O.Ms.No.46, Finance (HRM.V-PC) Department, dated 30.04.2015 as being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional besides violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and the action of the Respondents is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2017 SCC Pg. 148 in the matter of State of Punjab and others^{v.JagjitSinghandothers} and pass such other orders....”

¶54

Heard Mr.P.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, representiang R.V.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, who appeared virtually: learned Assistant Government Pleader, Panchayat^Raj and Rural Development and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-I and Services-IV for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are working as Panchayat Secretaries under the control^of respondents and they were initially appointed as Hand Receipt Workers^{betweentheyear1987} to 1991 in Kadapa District under Telugu Ganga Project Kadapa Circle and subsequently they were absorbed as Panchayat Secretaries^on31.08.2002 issued by the District Collector and they were placed in various Panchayat Offices in Kadapa District. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 12.10.2007 in W.P.No.21674 of 2007, the representation of the petitioners considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner for absorption and regularization as Panchayat Secretaries and repatriated the petitioners to

¶55

¶56

Telugu Ganga Project i.e Irrigation Department vide proceedings dated 29.04.2008. Assailing the same O.A.No.3963 of 2008^{andlearnedTribunal} granted interim order directing the respondent to take^decision.The 1 St respondent issued impugned Memo dated 26.11.2009, which was questioned in O.A.No.10171 of 2008 before learned tribunal and obtained status quo order and subsequently it was allowed with a direction to continue the petitioners as Panchayat Secretaries by setting aside the impugned Memo and further directed to relax the rules of Panchayat Secretaries for absorption and regularization. The respondents questioned the^{sameinW.P.No.13746of} 2009 and this Court granted status quo. While the matter^{stoodthus,the} respondents issued G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 24.02.2010 issuing the special rules for the A.P.Panchayat Raj Subordinate Service Rules for Panchayat Secretaries Grade-1 to Grade-IV and the respondents absorbed and regularized in proceedings dated 15.02.2014 regularizing the services and declaring the probation of the Panchayat Secretaries Grade-Ill and 7 Panchayat Secretaries were regularized in Kadapa District,^{whoareworking} along with the petitioners since 2002 discriminating^{thepetitioners,} who were selected by Special qualifying test and got appointed as Panchayat Secretaries, inspite of the same, the respondents ignored^thecase of the petitioners and regularized other Panchayat Secretaries^and discriminated without any reasons, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence,^thepresent writ petition came to be filed, questioning the inaction^of the respondents herein and requested to allow the same.

¶57

Per contra, respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material allegations made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that 21 HR workers were appointed as Panchayat Secretaries by^conducting a test. Accordingly, they have been appointed as Panchayat Secretaries vide proceedings dated 04.12.2002 of the District Collector,^{Kadapa.Altogether44} HR Workers were appointed as Panchayat Secretaries^{inbetweenAugustand} December, 2002. It is further contended that the Government^issuedMemo dated 04.01.2003 has informed that in terms of G.O.Rt.No.700, dated 27.04.2002, the HR workers of Telugu Ganga Project,^{whoarenotregular} employees and not possessing, time scale, are not eligible^forthepostof Panchayat Secretary post and requested the District^{Collector,Kadapa} to cancel such appointments immediately. Accordingly,^{alltheHRworkerswere} repatriated to their parent department vide proceedings^{dated27.01.2003of} District Collector, Kadapa. Aggrieved by the same,^{thepetitionersfiledO.A} and subsequently writ petitions. Pursuant to the directions^{oflearnedTribunal} the request of the petitioner considered and after^{carefulexaminationofthe} matter the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.643, dated 29.04.2008 rejected the request of HR workers of Telugu Ganga Project, for^{regularizationoftheir} services as Panchayat Secretaries, as their claim is^{againsttherulesand} permitted the District Collector, Kadapa for repatriation^{ofthoseHRworkersto} their parental department. Accordingly they were repatriated^{videproceedings} dated 28.05.2008 of District Collector, Kadapa. Subsequently the petitioners challenged the said proceedings and pursuant to the^directions of learned

¶58

¶59

Tribunal re-examine the case of the petitioners and repatriated to their parent department vide proceedings dated 05.12.2008. Again it was challenged and obtained status quo. Accordingly, the petitioners were^{allowedtocontinueas} Panchayat Secretaries vide proceedings dated 18.12.2008 of District Collector, Kadapa. Subsequently the order dated 26.11.2008^wassetaside. After receipt of the orders, the Government issued instructions for regularization of the services of HR workers dated 09.04.2009, in the meantime, the petitioners filed another O.A.No.98 of 2010 seeking direction to the respondents to grant increments to the petitioners, which is pending.

¶60

It is further contended that the Director of Treasuries, Vijayawada vide Memo dated 27.11.2019 has informed the Deputy Director, District Treasury, YSR District that Circular Memo dated 09.01.2019 issued by the Government is not applicable in respect of the petitioners, since, their appointment as Panchayat Secretary in question. The spirit of the said Memo is to clear the pending pay fixation cases, so as to implement Phase-ll CFMSHRMS Module Development only, but not, the cases which are under dispute and therefore requested the Deputy Director, District Treasury, YSR District to take further action in the matter. Since the petitioners are not regular employees and they are not possessing any time scale and they are being continued as Panchayat Secretaries only as per the^{orderoflearnedtribunal} issued from time to time, their request for re-fixation of their pay as per PRC recommendations issued G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 30.04.2015 and consequential Circular Memo dated 09.01.2019 has not been considered. The action of the

¶61

¶62

respondents in not considering the request of the petitioners is strictly in accordance with the rules in vogue. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to claim any relief in this writ petition and requested^{todismissthesame.}

¶63

The 4^^ respondent filed counter-affidavit and mainly^{contendedthat} the petitioners have filed several cases against the^{respondentsbothbefore} learned Tribunal and also this Court. The petitioners^{havefiledW.P.No.15058} of 2019 seeking relief to fix the pay in RPS 2015 as per G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 30.04.2015 and Circular Memo dated 09.01.2019 and this Court while disposing the said writ petition, directed the respondents^{4to6toimplement} the Circular Memo dated 09.01.2019. Further the petitioners have filed C.C.No.60 of 2020, which was dismissed based on statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Now the petitioners^{havefiledWritPetition} questioning the memo dated 27.11.2019 issued by the^{4^^respondent.Inthis} context, it is submitted that the 4'^ respondent, in issuing the same Memo, has only interpreted the Circular Memo dated 09.01.2019,^{whichdoesnotapplyto} those employee whose pay fixation were pending due^to pending^Disciplinary Cases or Court Cases. This fact has been confirmed by the Government vide Memo dated 07.12.2020, which was issued when the 4*^ respondent has for sought extension of time limit for claiming of the^{pendingfixationsofRPS} 2015 beyond 31.01.2020. However, the relaxation to^{claimRPS2015fixations} beyond 31.01.2020 has been extended for those cases^{whichdidnothavethe} opportunity to exercise option earlier owing to disciplinary cases or court cases. In the instant case, the services of the petitioners are not yet

¶64

•'■X ^

¶65

¶66

regularized and they are continuing in their respective posts based on the order of the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.10171 of 2008. Further, the Government has also challenged the order of the tribunal before this Court, which is pending. Meantime allowing the petitioners,^{whoseservicesarenot} yet regularized the benefits of Revised Pay Scales results in drain of Government funds. Therefore, the writ petition is liable^{tobedismissed.}

¶67

Perused the record.

¶68

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioners are getting the regular pay as per the revision of pay scales, which was revised from time to time and the respondents sanctioned revision of pay scales of 2005 and 2010 with minimum pay scale with interim relief was granted and the petitioners are getting salaries in the scale of 2010 with consequential benefits. It is further^contended that the petitioners pay was not revised and refixed and the respondents are not taking any action to revise and refix the same. The petitioners also filed W.P.No. 15058 of 2019 seeking relief to direct the respondents to revise and re-fix the pay of the petitioners as per the Pay Revision Commission recommendations issued in G.O.Ms.N6.46, dated 30.04.2015 and consequential Circular Memo dated 09.01.2019 and revise the pay of the petitioners in the revised pay scales of 2015 with consequential benefits with arrears of salaries and the same was disposed on 02.10.2019 while directing the respondents 4 to 6 to implement the Circular Memo^{dated09.01.2019.But} the respondents did not take any action so far. Hence, filed C.C.No.60 of

¶69

¶70

Subsequently the respondents filed a Memo dated^{27.11.2019issued} by the 4^^ respondent stating that the petitioners^{appointmentisinquestionfor} absorption into Panchayat Raj Department and that the^{contemptwasclosed.} At present the petitioners questioning the Memo dated^{27.11.2019asthe4} th respondent is nothing to do for granting the minimum^{payscaleasperthe} recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission revised^{fromtimetotime} as per G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 30.04.2015 with all consequential^benefitswith effect from 02.06.2015 and relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and Others”^,^wherein it was

¶71

held as follow;-

¶72

"42. All the judgments noticed in paras 7 to 24 hereinabove,^pertainto employees engaged on regular basis, who were claiming higher wages, under^{theprincipleof} “equal pay for equal work". The claim raised by such employees was premised on the ground, that the duties and responsibilities rendered by them were^againstthe same post for which a higher pay scale was being allowed in other government departments. Or alternatively, their duties and responsibilities^{werethesameasof} other posts with different designations, but they were placed^ina lower^scale. Having been painstakingly taken through the parameters laid down by the Court, wherein the principle of "equal pay for equal work” was invoked^{andconsidered,} it would be just and appropriate to delineate the parameters laid down by^{thisCourt.Inrecordingthe} said parameters, we have also adverted to some other^{judgmentspertaining} to temporary employees (also dealt with, in the instant^{judgment),whereinalso,} this Court had the occasion to express the legal position with reference to the principle of "equal pay for equal work". Cur consideration, has led us to the following deductions: ”

¶73

44.5. In State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh”^, this Court^{heldthatdaily} wagers were entitled to be placed in the minimum of the pay scale^ofregular employees working against the same post The above direction was issued^{afteracceptingthatthe}

¶74

(2017) 1 see 148 ^(1998) 9 see 595

¶75

¶76

employees concerned were doing the same work as regular incumbents holding the same post by applying the principle of "equal pay for equal work".

¶77

Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work’, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires out determination is, whether the employees concerned (before this Court), were rendering^{similardutiesand} responsibilities as were being discharged by regular employees holding the same/ corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ summarised by us in para 42 above, It is also accepted that during the course of their employment, the temporary employees concerned were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities which at some point in time were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts were also posted to discharge the same work which was assigned to employees from^timetotime, There can be no doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post. ’’

¶78

Learned counsel for the petitioner categorically^{submittedthatinthe} light of the decision supra, the petitioners are granted^{2005and2010scales} as per the revised pay scales in the minimum time of scale of pay and whereas 2015 revision of pay scales were not granted on the ground that their absorption and regularization is pending before this^{CourtinW.P.No.13746of} 2009 which is for absorption and for regularization^{oftheirserviceandnotfor} minimum pay scales.

¶79

No doubt, the petitioners are continuing by virtue^{ofinterimdirection} of this Court without pay fixation. The petitioners^also filed series of writ petitions both before this Court and also learned Tribunal on various grounds.

¶80

¶81

The petitioners herein are working on par with other^{employeesinsamecadre} under the respondents, which is undisputed. Further^{anotherwritpetitionvide} W.P.No. 13746 of 2009 is pending before this Court,^which is for absorption and for regularization of their service, but not for^{minimumpayscales.Inthe} instant case. the petitioners claiming only revise and refix the^payofthe petitioners as per the Pay Revision Commission recommendations issued in G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 30.04.2015 with all consequential^benefits.

¶82

Admittedly, the petitioners are working under the^{respondentsand} discharging duties on par with other employees. As^{perStateofPunjaband} Others v. Jagjit Singh and Others would squarely applies^{intheinstantcase} as the petitioners concerned were doing the same work^{asregularincumbents} holding the same post by applying the principle of^{“equalpayforequalwork.} Therefore, the petitioners are automatically entitled^{forthebenefitsuptodate} from the respondents.

¶83

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents^strongly relied on a Memo dated 04.01.2003 issued by the Additional^Secretaryto Government wherein it was mentioned that ''the HR workers/^JobTypistsof Telugu Ganga Project who are not regular Government^{employeesandare} not in time scale cannot be appointed as Panchayat^{Secretaries.Heisfurther} informed that it has come to the notice of the Government^thatsomeH.R Workers of Telugu Ganga Project have already been appointed^asPanchayat Secretaries in the time scale. The Collector is requested^{toverifyhowsuch} appointments were made in violation of G.O.Ms.No.700,^{dated27.04.2022}

¶84

¶85

and take necessary action to cancel such appointment orders immediate!/. Therefore, the petitioners are not regular employees and they were repatriated to their home department, but said proceedings are being challenged by the petitioners vide separate proceedings and obtained^{status quo.Therefore, the} petitioners are being continuing in same position and discharging^theirduties.

¶86

However, admittedly, the petitioners are being continued by the respondents in respective positions i.e Panchayat Secretaries vide proceedings dated 08.12.2008, it is the bounden duty^{ofthemtopayminimum} time scale as per G.O on par with other similar situate^persons, but the respondents did not initiate any steps so far, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶87

It is the main grievance of the petitioners is^{thattheGovernment} once again revision of Pay Scales granted and revised^{thePayScalesinthe} year 2015 vide G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 30.04.2015 and the consequential benefits with effect from 02.06.2014 was granted, but the petitioners pay scales was not revised and refixed the minimum of the pay as per the recommendations of the 2015 PRC granted vide G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 30.04.2015. In the instant case the petitioners questioned^theMemodated 27.11.2019 and requested to grant revised pay scales of 2015 and in G.O.Ms.No. 46, dated 30.04.2015 with all consequential^benefits.

¶88

In view of the foregoing discussion and also following^thedecision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners,^{thepetitionersareeligible.}

¶89

¶90

entitled to grant minimum Pay Scale as per the PRC^{recommendationsof} 2015 revision of Pay Scales granted vide G.O.Ms.No.46,^{dated30.04.2015} with retrospective effect from 02.06.2014 with all^{consequentialrevisionofPay} Scales.

¶91

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, while declaring the impugned Memo dated 27.11.2019 issued by the 4'^ respondent^as illegal, arbitrary and same is hereby set aside. Further, directing^{therespondentsto} revise and refix the pay of the petitioners in the^{revisedpayscalesof2015as} per G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 30.04.2015 with consequential monetary benefits with effect from 02.06.2014 including arrears, if any,^{withinfour(04)months} from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There^{shallbenoorderasto} costs.

¶92

¶93

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶94

SDI- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶95

//TRUE COPY//

¶96

To,

¶97

The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi.

¶98

The Commissioner, P.R. and R.D. Department, Tadepalli, Guntur, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh State

¶99

The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department,^Stateof Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi,

¶100

The Director, Treasury, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh State.

¶101

The District Collector, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, Kadapa-516 001, Andhra Pradesh State

¶102

The Deputy Director, Treasury Officer, At Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh State

¶103

One CC to Sri R V Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶104

Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶105

Two CCs to GP for Services - I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. Two CD Copies

RAM

HIGH COURT

DATED:15/11/2024

of
2 7 NOV 202'! Oi
^ Current Section

¶111

ORDER

¶112

WP.No.1068 of 2021

¶113

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

A Rajasekhar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Rajasekhar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pujari Balachandar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunapareddy Nan Rao @ Narayana Rao Vs The Registrar

Neelam Laxmana Rao, Eg District & 5 Others Vs Prl. Secretary, Endowments Dept., Hyd & 3 Others

V. Subba Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Madhusudhana Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kn Koteswara Rao Vs the State of Ap