Allowed

S.Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Dec 2025WP/16210/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition wherein petitioners, engaged as Bill Collectors for long periods by a private contractor, were granted minimum regular time scale pay under the equal pay principle for their continuous service despite lacking regular appointment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be granted minimum regular time scale of pay with consequential benefits from the date of disallowance of earlier orders.

S.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132s2l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

I\4ONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 16210 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

S.Srinivas, S/o Saidulu, Aged. 49 years, Occ. Bill Collector, Badangpet Ivlunicipal Corporation, Badangpet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

Y.Nagi Reddy, S/o Raji Reddy, Aged. 44 years, Occ. Bill Collector, BadangpetMunicipal Corporation, Badangpet,Ranga Reddy District

¶10

G.Anjaiah, S/o Ramulu, Aged. 54 years, Occ. Brll Collector, Bad ang petl,4 unicipa I Corporation, Badangpet,Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

R.Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Keshava Reddy, Aged. 39 years, Occ. Bill Collector, Badang petl\ilu nicipal Corporation, Badangpet,Ranga Reddy District-

¶12

B.Srinivas, S/o Mallesh, Aged. 35 years, Occ. Bill Collector, Bad a ngpet[,4 unicipa I Corporation, Badangpet,Ranga Reddy District

¶13

K.Domnik, S/o Showrelu, Aged. 41 years, Occ. Bill Collector, BadangpetlVlunicipal Corporation, Badangpet,Ranga Reddy District

¶14

B.tt/ahipal, S/o Swamy, Aged. 42 years, Occ. Bill Collector, BadangpetMunicipal Corporation, Badangpet,Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

P.Srihari, S/o Rukkaiah, Aged. 42 years, Occ. Bill Collector, Badangpet Municipal Corporation, Badangpet,Ranga Reddy District

¶16

S.Sai Ram, S/o lt4allesh, Aged. 40 years, Occ. Bill Collector, Badangpetltrlunicipal Corporation, Badangpet,Ranga Reddy District

¶17

P.Pavani, Wio Narsingh Rao. Aged. 42 years, Occ. Bill Collector, Badangpet IVlunicipal Corporation, Badangpet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

11 . V.Shiva Leela, D/o V.Venkata Rao, Aged. 42 yearc, Occ. Bill Collector, Badangpetlt/unicrpal Corporation, Badangpet,Ranga Reddy District

¶19

D.Vinod Kumar, S/o Chandraiah, Aged. 41 years, Occ. Bill Collector, Badangpetlt4unrcrpal Corporation, Badangpet,Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

13.S.Jangaiah, S/o Kistaiah, Aged. 40 years, Occ. Bill Collector, BadangpetMunicipal Corporation, Badangpet,Ranga Reddy District

¶21

B.Bhagya, W/o.Raju Aged. 49 years, Occ. Bill Collector, BadangpetMunicipal Corporation, Badangpet, Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

...PETITIONERS

¶23

AND

¶24

1 The State of Telangana, Finance and Planning Departnr ,rnt, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶25

2 The State of Telangana, l,4unicipal Administration and [.t ban Development Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretaria., Hyderabad.

¶26

J The Commissioner and Director of I,4unicipal Administrzrlion, Hyderabad. 4 The Regiona{ Director, Municipal Administration Departr ent, Hyderabad Region Hyderabad.

¶27

E The Badangpet Municipal Corporation, Represented by r s Commissioner, Badangpet, Ranga Reddy District

¶28

...RESPONDENTS

¶29

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lnc1iir praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith. the i-1igh Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularl 7 one tn the nature of Writ of l,4andamus to declare the action of the responde I s in nol paying the IVinimum regular time scale in the Last Grade service to th€, )e ttoners under the principles of Equal pay, Equal work as per the Judgment o, he Honble Supreme Court reported in 2017(1) SCC 148 in the state of^punle I and others Verses Jagjitsingh and others as illegal, arbitrary and Un-constitutic r al and consequenIy direct the respondents to pay the l,4inimum regular time sce e in the Last Grade service to the petitioners under the principles of Equal pay, _ qual work as per the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2017(11 ICC 1 4g in the state of Punjab and others Verses Jagjit singh with all inciden:: I and consequential benefits duly taking rnto consideration the length of service 1 L t by the petitioners.

¶30

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci^-r umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the lr,4inimum regular time sce e in the Last Grade service to the petitioners as per the Judgment of the Horrble Supreme Cou( reported in 2017(1) SCC148 in the state of Punjab and otho s Verses Jagjitsingh case pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR FINANCE & pLA NNING

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: Gp FOR MUNICIPA_ ADMTNISTRATION & URBAN DEVELCI'MENT

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI RAMESH CHILLA, S;(:: FOR SHADNAGAR MUNICIP T LITY

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'B E MRS. JUSTICE SURE PALLI NANDA

¶38

WRIT PETITIO N No.15210 OF 2021

¶39

DATE: O1.12.2O25

¶40

Between:

¶41

Sri S. Srinivas & 13 others

¶42

Petitioners

¶43

And

¶44

The State of Telangana & 4 Others

¶45

Respondents

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned Standing Counse! for Shadnagar Municipality, Badangpet, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

¶48

The petitioners approached the Court seeking

¶49

oraver as under:

¶50

"...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the

¶51

¶52

SN, J a.^I62l0_2021

¶53

lvlinimum regular time scale in the Last Grade ; )ruice to the^petitloners under the^principles of :quai pay,Equal work as per the Judqment of the - cnble Suprerne Court reported tn 2077(1) SCC 148 ir the state of Punjab and others Verses lagjitsingl^and others as illegal, arbitrary and Un-constitutione anci consequently direct the respondents to^p. \ the N4inimum regular time scale in the Last Grade ;:rvice to the petitioners under the principles of Equ,t^pay, Equal work as per the ludgment of the I cnble Supreme Court reported in 2017(1) SCC 148 ir the state of Punjab and others Verses Jagjit singh^,v th all incidental and consequential benetits duly takifr, into consideration the length of servrce put .\ the petitioners and to pass... ".

¶54

The ease of the^p etitioners, in brief,^a per the ave!'ments made in the affidavit filed bv the petitioners in suDDort of the oresent Writ tI r:tition is as under:-

¶55

The petitioners were appointed as Bill Co ectors in various Gram Panchayats through a valid selecti:1 process and the petitioners appointments were apprl rved and salaries were paid to the petitioners based on reg r ar annual permission being given by the District Collector, r onfirming their continuous service. The petitioners' ap l:)intments were subsequently ratified by the District Collector, Panchayat Raj Wing, and the petitioners continu 3:J to work in sanctioned posts in their respective Gram^)rnchayats without any interruption. Later ofl, sevt: al Gram

¶56

SN, J {p,16210 2021

¶57

.,)

¶58

Panchayats were merged to form Badangpet Nagar Panchayat in 2013, and the petitioners services were taken over by Badangpet Municipality, where the^petitioners continued performing the same duties as regular Bill Collectors. Despite working continuously and discharging identical functions, petitioners were not granted with the minimum time scale of pay. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court ludgment, in Sfate of Punjab & Others vs. Jagjit Singh, reported an 2OL7 (1) SCC 148, wherein it is categorically held that employees working on daily wage / NMR basis are entitled to minimum time scale of pay on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work", the petitioners approached this Court by filing the^present writ petition.

¶59

4. PERUSED THE RECORD

¶60

(A) The Relevant Dortion of the interim order 20, 2.2023 assed b t s Court in W

¶61

of 2O2L, is extracted hereunder:

¶62

*6. Admit.

¶63

Post after ten (10) weeks for hearing. This matter is coming from 19.07.2O21 for filing of counter by the respondents. The Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents took time on several occasions for filing counter, but till today no

¶64

¶65

SN, J p r6::0 2021

¶66

counter is filed. Today also none appeared f)' the respondent No.5.

¶67

ln view of the same, there shall be : r.erir direction to the respondents to pay Minimum re gular time scale attached to the post of similar to whrc I the petitioners are rendering thelr services as per tr ) law declared in the State of Punjab Vs. Jagit Singl and others reported in (2017 SCC (1) 148), within eir;lrt (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this ord r ."

¶68

The learned counsel appearing on behzrli' of the petitioners mainly contends that the subject iss;r e in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the oi < er oi' this Court dated 23.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.6650 oi' ,2018 and also by the order of this Court dated 15.11.2022 )assed in W.P.No.26584 of 2019.

¶69

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on ber,rlf of the respondents places reliance on the averments m e le in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent^,jo.5 and mainly contends that the petitioners are not e:l gible for payment of minimum time scale since the petiti( )ners are neither regular employees nor working against the sanctioned posts in Badangpet Municipal Corpora:ion. It is further contended that the petitioners are only er titled for

¶70

) )

¶71

SN', J rvp 16210 2021

¶72

)

¶73

wages as^per the^{Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as per the} Government^{ordersvide G.O.MsNo 60, dated 11 06'2021} and accordingly,^{the petitioners are being paid Rs'15,600/-} per month as on date,^{therefore,the petitioners are not} entitled for the^{grant of relief as prayed for in the present} Writ Petition.

¶74

7 Th ADex Court ina t dome nt reDorted^{in (2O L7)} 1suDreme Co rt Cases 148.^{lnStateof Puniab} nd oth ersvs Jaqiit Sinqh^{andothers atParas54 and its} ed su - Da ras ( 1)(2 )(3), of the said iudqment^obse

¶75

as u nder:

¶76

"54 "The Full Bench^{of the Hiqh Court, whileadjudicating} upon the above^{controversyhad concluded, that temporary} eimployees^{were not entitled to the minimumof the regular} i,ui-ttarc,^{merely for the reason,that the activities carried} 'on' by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar' The futl bench however,^{made two exceptions'Temporary} employees,^{who fell in either of the two exceptions,were} heid entitled to^{wages at the minimum of the pay-scale} drawn by regular^{employees.Theexceptions recordedby the} futl bench of^{the HighCourtin the impugnediudgmentare} extracted hereunder:'

¶77

"(1) A daity wager, ad^{hoc or contractual appointee against} the regutai sanZtioned^{posts,if appointedafter undergoinqa} selecion^{processbased upon fairnessand equalityof.} opportuni[y b^{alt other etigiblecandidates,shall be entitled} to' minimum of^{the regular pay scate from the date of} engagement.

¶78

(2) But if dailvwa ers. ad hoc ol tra al a o a s r n tv, tnu not I Sta

¶79

¶80

¶81

SN. I !F I^()l l0 2021

¶82

.Government or its instrumentalities for ..!)t sufficient lono oeriod i.e. for lO vears. such daitv wac ers. aa noc or contractual apooin tees shall be entitled to mi mum of the reoular pav scale without anv allow,l lces on the assumption that wotk of perennial nature_ ts availa ble and havino worked for s ch lono Deriod lf time. an eou ita ble riqht is create tn su te of De rsons. r clai for nza ifa a , have to be considered separatelv in terms of leoallv _t.enlEslble scheme,

¶83

(3) In the event, a claim is made for minim t n pay scale after more than three years and two months t,.completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wagt r, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arreat s for a period of three years and two months.,,

¶84

Hon'ble High Court for the State of Te lanqana in Judgment dated 07.08.2020 passed in I.A.No. of 2019 in W.P.No.47675 of 2018 in G. Srinivasa Chary l's Stafe of

¶85

Telangana, observed as u nder:

¶86

"In the result.

¶87

(a) The Writ Petition is allowed:

¶88

(b) the respondents' action in engaging the pet tioners on "outsourcing basis" as Sanitary Supervisorj (SFA), Sanitation Workers, Entomology Field !,1r1asr5, Entomology Superior Field Workers, Supervisors (EFA), Superior Field Assistants t hrough in termed ia ries/agencies/contractors is contrary .to law, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constilt tion of India and also the law declared by the Suprentr: Court in Uma Devi (1 supra) mandating periodic -egular recruitment to sanctioned posts:

¶89

(c) that the "outsourcing system adopted by the GHMC is only a sham and a ruse to avoid extendin(t to the petitioners their genuine service entitlements; ,1 td that the presence of such intermediary/contractor htt to be ignored, and the petitioners are held to havl been directly engaged by the GHMC and they are all o held

¶90

¶91

SN, J \'p_ r 62r 0 2021

¶92

entitled to be considered^{for regularisation of their} services:

¶93

(d) consequently, the respondents,^{while continuously} engaging the services of^{the petitionersdirectly} nencefortfr, are directed to^{considerthe case of the} petitioners for regularisation of their^services,by ignorlng the existence of the intermed ia ries/ag en cies/contracto^{rs in the posts of} Sanitary Supervisor^{(SFA), Sanitatlon Workers,} Entomology Field Workers,^{Entomology Superior Field} Workers, Supervisors^{(EFA), Superior Field Assistants} within two (2) months^{from the date of receipt of a} copy of the order.

¶94

(e) the petitioners are entitled to^{minimumof time} scale of pay attached to^{the posts ofSanitary} Supervisor (SFA), Sanitation^{Workers. EntomologyField} Workers, Entomology Superior^{Field Workers'} Supervisors^{(EFA), SuperiorField Assistants in which} they are now discharging^{theirfunctions till their claim} for regularisation is considered^{by the GHMCin} accordince with^para 53^{of the decision in Uma Devl ( 1} supra); and such^{paymentsshall be made by theGHt"1C} directiy to the^{petitioners w.e.f the date of filing of this} Writ petition (after deducting^{the paymentsalready} received by them during^{this period fromthe} contractor/interm ed^{ia ry} )^{andshallbe continued till the} cases of the^{petitionersareconsideredfor} regularisation by the GHMC.^{The arrears upto} 31.7.2020 shall be^{paidon or before L5.9.2O2O.}

¶95

¶96

9 The D ivision Bench of is Court dealino with^an identical situati n in^{W.P.Nos.5556,} 85 and 89 68 of

¶97

2018 observed in the^{saidiudqmentinDa rticu lar. at}

¶98

par qraoh Nos.9 to 1 2,asu der:

¶99

"It is pertinent to note^{that inidentical} circumstances in W.P.No.26788 of 2017, wherein^{the persons,who were} working in Kavali Municipality, sought^minimumtime

SN..I \,P I6210 2021

scale of pay, this Court vide order dated 10.g.21t.7 held that the petitioners therein are entitled for c lant of minimum trme sca,le of pay and in addition to Ii,t, tney are also entitled for grant of increments frorr ..ime to time in the time scale of pay. But however, this r:lLtrt ;, tne above Writ petition restricted the arrears or v from the date ol fiting of the O.A. by the petitioners if Jrein.

¶104

10.^{Apart from that, the Hon,bleSupreme} :^r)urt in State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh an,l :ihers, considered the principle of equa[-pay f6r eq,r,,i work and held that the persons who aie'dischargir 3 their duties on par with regular employees are entit-ir,r l'to the minimum scale of pay under the principle of e 1.ral pay for equal work.

¶105

In the- light of the judgments referred to sLr;rra and in view of the fact that the services of the pct tioners-o1 have been continued since two decades, *"'ur'i tn" view that the petitioners are entiued to minim _r n time scale of pay under the principle of equal pay f:. equal work, even though they were engaged by a :rivate contracior. Therefore, the orders passed by .lre A.p. Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in O.A.trio.j1373 of 2014, dared 70.8.2017 and o.A.No.2369 0f 2o:. dared 6.7 .2017 , are set aside.

¶106

Accordingly, the Writ petitions are allowe:J. The respondents are directed to grant minimum tirt ) scale of pay to the petitioners and also to add annur grade increments as and when they fell due from t rie to time. However, the petitioners are entiUed tc 3ll the arrears from the date of filing of the O.As bei rrs 16s Tribunal. No costs. ConsequenUy, misce Itneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.,,

¶107

1O. Learned Standing Counsel placing relian :e on the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, does tot dispute the fact that the petitioners are working in the .espondent No.5-Municipal Corporation, but however the only plea taken for opposing the grant of reliefs as sought for by the

SN. J wp I(,210 2021

petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that the petitioners are not regular employees working against sanctioned^posts in the Badangpet Municipal Corporation.

¶112

This Court opines that the said^pleas are not tenable in view of the observations of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the^judgments referred to and extracted above.

¶113

L2. Takinq into c n sideration: -

¶114

a) The aforesaid facts and carcumstances of the^case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned Standing Counse! for Shadnagar Municipality, Badangpet, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5,

¶115

c) The interim order dated 2O.O2.2O23^passed in W.P.No.1621O of 2O21(referred to and extracted

¶116

above),

¶117

d) The observations of the Apex Court and this Court in the various^{judgments(referred} to^and extracted above),

SN, J \rp r6lt0 2021

The Writ Petition is accordinotv a!!owg d in ter ms of the inte ri m order Dassed bv this Cr) tJ dated 20,o2.2023 directinq the resDonde nts to dulv onsl er er ue of e iti r or t,ry!![cnt_ef mtntm um requl r time scale ttac ed o ! reir^posts dulv taki nq into con sideration the Iaw declit'ed bv the A c rt in th ta ofP n a Vs a it iiino h and o ers e o ed in o17 SC 1 48 un ert he I ncr sofE al an E w rk Irlrtatrns to co sid rati th ob va si the ! irdo ments referr dt an extr e b v an simI,!emented nr ec of est ila rl sl te e 1s like the etitio ers i w .No 19132 an 205 4 o' zOLg and n W.P.N .66 ot2 8 d sa na te orders na r ce law w ln r d f l'our (04) _^::h is order ddu com un ed ston he ( rtitioners. Ho ever, there shall beno order as to ostr;

¶122

¶123

SN, J ^?_ 1621 0 202 r

¶124

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶125

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶126

SD/.AHMED ABDULLAH^KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Principal Secretary,^{The Stateof Telangana' Finance and Planning} Deoartment. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶131

z in5^{pii".ipur-secreiary, Tn'e Stateof Telangana, Municipal Administration} - Urorn Developmeht^{Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad'} f "nO ih" Conln ssionei^{and Direbtorof fi,4unicipalAdministration,Hyderabad} i. rri" n"gi"^ai O'rector,^{trrlunicipalAdministration Department,Hyderabad} Region Hyderabad.

¶132

s fnd Commissioner,^{The Badangpet Ir/unicipalCorporation, Badangpet'} Ranoa Reddv District.

¶133

one"Cc to shl^{ARVIND KUMAR KATA, Advocate{oPUCl}

¶134

i O;; CC i" SNI^{NANIESU CHILLA,SC fOT SHADNAGAR MUNICIPALITY} IOPUC]

¶135

s " iwo-Cts orVEr-bprrltrNr, to GP FOR uign^MUNICIPAL Court for the^{ADI"llN|STRAT|ON & URBAN} State of Telang{a [gUJ] g iwo CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING, High^{Court for the stateot} Telangana. [OUT]

¶136

1. Two CD CoPies

I I I I, I i ,. I . : i I

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 11212025

ORDER

^;
"'/'. . .^a
u)
"^*
.). +
C) d> o
lr- <br>-.g<br>,{
,9c/H + 6'ry'

¶146

WP.No.16210 of 2021

¶147

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶148

{
DI:
\/

S.Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

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

V. Venkata Swamy Vs Dr. Christina Z. Chongthu,Ias

V Surya Vs The State of Telangana

Shailesh Shailesh Kumar Mandal Vs The Union of India

Madda Bhaskar, Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. K. Mahipal Vs The Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad

Eslavath Priyanka Vs The State of Telangana