P.Ravi Kumar, Vs The Special Secretary to Government

¶1

1

¶2

APHC010049992021

¶3

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

¶4

[3458]

¶5

THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 3628/2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

P.RAVI KUMAR,, S/O (LATE) KAMESWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR, GVMC, R/O 16-19, DAGGUVANIPALEM, PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶10

RAPETI KOTI NAGARAJU,, S/O RAMU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT. 50 YEARS, OCC. ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶11

MOPADA RAMESH KUMAR,, S/O KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT. 41 YEARS, OCC. COMPUTER OPERATOR,

¶12

G.APPA RAO,, S/O RAMU, AGED ABOUT. 45 YEARS, OCC. ATTENDER,

¶13

Y.SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O BUTCHI BABU, AGED ABOUT. 44 YEARS, OCC. ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶14

I.KANAKA RAJU,, S/O (LATE) KANNAYYA, AGED ABOUT. 54 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶15

K.NARASINGA RAO,, , S/O (LATE) SANYASI RAO, AGED ABOUT. 50 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶16

G.SRINIVAS,, S/O (LATE) RAMU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT. 34 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶17

SK.HUSSAIN,, S/O MADEENA, AGED ABOUT. 48 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶18

Y.SATEESH,, S/O SANYASI RAO, AGED ABOUT. 35 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶19

2

¶20

S.MURALI KUMAR,, S/O ANANDA RAO , AGED ABOUT. 48 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶21

G.RAJESWARI,, , W/O SRIKRISHNA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT. 44 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶22

K.VEKATA RAMANA,, S/O VENKATA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT. 43 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶23

D.V.SATYANARAYANA,, S/O LAXMANA RAO, AGED ABOUT. 44 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶24

D.CHANDRASEKHAR,, , S/O ESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT. 37 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶25

V.LAXMANA RAO,, S/O VEERASWAMY, AGED ABOUT. 51 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶26

G.LAXMANA RAO,, S/O (LATE) PENTAYYA, AGED ABOUT. 52 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶27

NAMMI RAMANA,, , S/O DHRAMA RAO , AGED ABOUT. 36 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶28

K.NARAYANA RAO,, S/O APPALASWAMY, AGED ABOUT. 47 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶29

G.SRINIVASA KUMAR,, S/O VEERRAJU, AGED ABOUT. 41 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶30

K.RAGHUNADHA RAO,, S/O MEGHA RAO, AGED ABOUT. 39 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR,

¶31

CH.NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O DEMUDU, AGED ABOUT. 35 YEARS, OCC.ASST.TO TAX COLLECTOR, (PETITIONERS 2 TO 22 ALL ARE DO P.RAVI KUMAR, R/O 16-19, DAGGUVANIPALEM, PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM)

¶32

...PETITIONER(S)

¶33

AND

¶34

THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT,

¶35

3

¶36

VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶37

THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶38

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AP CORPORATION OF OUTSOURCED SERVICES (APCOS), 2ND FLOOR, APSRTC ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, PN BUS-STATION, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶39

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶40

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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to pay wages at the minimum of pay scale (at the lowest rate, in the regular pay scale) extended to regular employees holding the same post, to the petitioners who are employed by the 2nd respondent Corporation as Assistants to Tax Collectors etc., in compliance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Judgments. also holding that the migration of the services of the petitioners to the APCOS is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass

¶41

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶42

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 pleased to pass Interim Orders directing the respondents to pay initial basic pay of Rs.13,000/- of the minimum time scale of pay attached to the lowest category post of Office Subordinates in the State Service (Rs.13,000-40,270), to the Petitioners who are working as Assistant to Tax Collectors etc., in the 2nd respondent organization, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs Jagjith Singh and others reported in 2017(1) SCC 148, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass

¶43

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶44

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 pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to continue to pay the wages of the petitioners through DWACUA groups and without involving APCOS, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass

¶45

4

¶46

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶47

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 pleased to vacate the interim order dated 08-05-2023 passed in W.P.No.3628/2021 and pass

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶49

1.Y SURYA PRASAD

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶51

1.K BHEEMA RAO

¶52

2.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶53

The Court made the following:

¶54

ORDER :

¶55

Heard Sri Y. Surya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Evana Sambasiva Pratap, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

¶56

The relief sought by the petitioners, employed by the 2^nd respondent Corporation as ‘Assistants to Tax Collectors’, is for payment of wages to the petitioners, at the Minimum of the Pay Scale, at the lowest rate in the regular pay scale, extended to the regular employees holding the same post.

¶57

The petitioners were originally appointed as Assistants to Tax Collectors on contract basis, in Gram Panchayats, situated around the 2^nd respondent Municipal Corporation. Upon merger of the said Gram Panchayats with the Municipal Corporation, their services were taken over by the Corporation, as contract employees initially, later were engaged through

¶58

5

¶59

DWACUA Groups formed under Jawahar Rojgar Yojana, self help groups for self employment and savings. Their wages were initially paid by the 2^nd respondent Corporation through the self help groups. The services of the petitioners were utilized in Revenue section as Assistants to Tax Collectors. The nature of the duties discharged by the petitioners as elaborated in the writ affidavit are tax collections, issue of demand notices, collecting the tax amount, pay it in the office and handover the receipts to the tax payers. These duties were discharged earlier by the Office Subordinates, since they were deployed at Zonal Offices, petitioners were assigned in the field functionaries. The petitioners made representation to the to the 1^st respondent seeking regularization of services.

¶60

During the interregnum, the government of Andhra Pradesh established a Corporation, namely the A.P. Corporation of Outsourced Services (hereinafter referred to as ‘APCOS’), a nonprofit Corporation, under the provisions of Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. A manpower outsourcing Corporation to remove the private outsourcing agencies and middlemen in availing the temporary services at the state government departments, and to have a transparent processes. As per the scheme and objectives of the said incorporation, all the outsourced employees, working in various departments of the state government and Corporations were migrated to APCOS. And the petitioners were paid gross salaries of Rs.12000/- per month. While the process of migration was in progress, the petitioners were

¶61

6

¶62

not paid any wages. Hence the present Writ Petition seeking Minimum Time Scale.

¶63

It is contended that the 3^rd respondent APCOS is an employer and is governed by the provisions of Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1972. The petitioners, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjith Singh and others¹ , contends that the petitioners are entitled for equal wages payable to regular employees discharging the similar duties.

¶64

The 2^nd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioners while they were working in Gram Panchayats were working as bill collectors on contract basis after the merger of Gram Panchayat with the 2^nd respondent Corporation, the petitioners have been working in the revenue section for collection of tax, assisting the tax collectors and their wages were paid through the 3^rd party agencies. The petitioners are outsourced employees through the 3^rd party employees. Upon incorporation of APCOS, all the outsourced employees working in various departments including the petitioners were migrated to APCOS in terms of G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 04.11.2019. And the wages have also been received from the 3^rd respondent, APCOS. It is further contended that the petitioners are not regular employees and they are not entitled for minimum time scale.

¶65

1 2017 (1) SCC 148

¶66

7

¶67

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the only claim of the petitioners in the writ petition is for grant of minimum time scale at the lowest scale of regular pay scale. It is further contended that some of the petitioners have been working since three to four decades and have been discharging the duties of a regular employees however they were not treated on par with the regular employees and were denied regular pay scales, leave alone the regularization and petitioners were not even considered for minimum time scale. The further contention is that the petitioners have dedicated their whole life in serving the government departments by accepting the meager salaries. It is further contended that having regard to a length of service that they have rendered in the department it can be construed that the nature of the duties discharged by the petitioners is perennial. Therefore the respondents should have considered the case for grant of minimum time scale.

¶68

The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjith Singh and others (referred supra ) and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another² and the Division Bench decision of Telengana High Court in W.A.No.396 of 2019

¶69

The learned Additional Advocate General Sri Evana Sambasiva Pratap, appearing for the 2^nd respondent Corporation, would contend that the

¶70

2 2025 INSC 998

¶71

8

¶72

engagement of the petitioners is not against the sanctioned posts and the regular vacancies. The posts of Assistants to Bill Collectors have never been sanctioned or notified in the state government departments/Corporations. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the duties discharged by the petitioners are the same as those of a regular employee in the capacity of Assistant to Bill Collectors. It is further contended that the length of service of the petitioners in the respective 2^nd respondent Corporation cannot be construed as indicative of the perennial nature of employment, to maintain the relief sought by the petitioners.

¶73

The learned Additional Advocate General further argues that the petitioners were paid minimum wages after extending benefits of the scheme of Employees Provident Fund (EPF) and the Employees State Insurance (ESI) and other insurance benefits. Since there are no sanctioned posts in the cadre of Assistant to Bill Collectors, payment of minimum of pay scale at the lowest rate in the regular pay scale would not arise and contended that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjith Singn and others, are distinguishable on facts.

¶74

Considered the submissions.

¶75

From the record, it appears that some of the petitioners have been working for more than three decades, regardless of their educational qualifications, ranging from SSC to technical qualifications in Diplomas and Post-Graduate Degrees in Arts. From the material, it appears that the year of

¶76

9

¶77

their appointments ranges between 1992 and 2004. The

¶78

Departments/Corporations have extracted work from the petitioners from a very young age for a meager salary.

¶79

When there is a handful of work, the necessity for creation of posts has not been felt by the competent authorities, owing to their persistent lack of attention, indecisiveness and inaction in addressing the ever-increasing work load for years together, a policy of outsourcing had gradually emerged, to offload the heavy work on one shoulder to the next shoulder offering lesser pay, without following selection process and were paid meager wages. Such persons, driven by their economic necessity and with the hope that entry into a government department or Corporation would one day guarantee them regular employment, accept to work for lesser wages, the said hope continues till they reach the age of retirement from government service. Due to the inaction and indecisiveness of the authorities, these individuals would continue to serve for years, and even for decades, dedicating their whole strength of their body for meager salary, without any promotion, pension or health insurance and would retire with empty pockets. A similar policy, adopted in the private sector was deprecated, and the labour laws have emerged. Governments cannot be permitted to adopt or justify policies that perpetuate exploitation under the pretext of administrative convenience or financial constraints.

¶80

10

¶81

14. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the

¶82

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of

¶83

Uttar Pradesh and another , wherein it is observed as under:

¶84

“17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

¶85

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.”

¶86

Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court is of the

¶87

view that the petitioners are entitled for Minimum Time Scale of Pay attached to the lowest category of the post of Office Subordinate, from the date of filing of the Writ Petition.

¶88

11

¶89

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 3 to grant Minimum Time Scale of Pay attached to the lowest category of the post of Office Subordinate, from the date of filing of the Writ Petition.

¶90