Allowed

M. Sanja Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Jul 2025WP/16462/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An NMR Attendant/Driver granted minimum time scale pay sought yearly increments and HRA. The Court, relying on precedents holding that a time scale of pay rises by periodical increments, directed respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider his representations for Annual Grade Increments within four weeks and communicate the decision.

What did the court decide?

Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 directed to consider petitioner's representations dated 15.11.2020 and 07.11.2021 for annual grade increments per A.P. Fundamental Rules Rule 31(a) of Rule 9, within four weeks

M. Sanja Goud Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} isPeciat^{original Jurisdiction)}

¶3

IiIONDAY, THE^{FOURTEENTHDAY OF} -J_ULY TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO:1 646 20F 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

lvl. Sania Goud'^{S/o M Saya Goud' aged about 46 vears' Occ Attendar/} Driver, iVo^{n. r.ro. r o-i +li ed;,, 3";ih'";""riagaiCJbnv' Nizambad'Niza mbad} District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana,^{Reppy the. Principal Secretary' Financeand} Planning^{Department, Secretariat,HyderaDao}

¶12

caste services

¶13

2 The District^{Collector/ President Nizambad district'} 'Schedule ;:=d.; i;ift ;;i^{i"iliii, it"o,t'tizama b a d'Ni zam ba d di st ri ct}

¶14

2 Manaqinq Director,^{T.S. ScheduleCaste' Co-operative Society Limited'} i5ffi ;;Y,^{s-taie]'Simt<snemaBhavan, Hvderabad'}

¶15

Caste services,^Co-oPerative

¶16

4 The Executive^{Director, District Schedule} l"t-i"til'rii^{ji, Nizimabad' Nizamabad district}

¶17

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under^{Article 226 of lhe Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue^{an orderor orders more particularlyone in the natureof writ of} mandamus^{declaring the action of Respondentin not adding yearly increments} and H.R.A.^{to the Petitioners minimum time scale pay as the same is illegal'} arbitrary^{and unjust and consequently direct the Respondentsto grant yearly} annual^{gradeincrementsand H R A' to the Petitioner alongwith minimumtime} scale w.e.f.^{2019 as per the orders passed in W'P No' 26788/2017reported in} 2017 (6) ALD^638.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent to consider petitioners Representation dared 07.11.2021 as per the orders in W.p.No.2678B of 2017 and pass appropriate pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶23

Between:

¶24

1 The District colector/ presid.ent Nizambad district, schedure caste services co-operative society limited, NizamaOaO,-fitLam*Ui"O'Oi-sirict

¶25

2 Managing Director. T_S. Schedule Caste, Co_operative Society Limited, Telangana state, Samkshema a-rravin,-uio6ruEu'o]t""

¶26

3 The Executive Director. District schedule caste servrces, co_operative society limited, Nizamabad, tttizjmaUaa iisjrict """'" "

¶27

AND

¶28

.,.PETITIONERS

¶29

H."'p;;11iJ:,li;t"t,?,Ti;i$E8,?t"i1l"-f il",ffir3r.:^ff ::1833

¶30

2 The State of Telanoana. F"p.. p.y the principal Secretary. Finance and Planning DepartmentlSecretaiibi, H'voli"ru,j""'"' "'

¶31

T...RESPONDENTS

¶32

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circJmstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the rnterim order passed in r.A.No. 112022 in w.p.No. 16462t2022, dared 29'01 .2024 and to dismiss the w.p. No. 1646212022 as the same is devoid of merits and substance, in the interest of justice.

¶33

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI G.RAVI MOHAN

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR FINANCE & PLANNING

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI SAPAVAT SREENTVAS,

¶36

SC FOR CO.OP SOCIETY LTD

¶37

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶38

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶39

WRIT PETITION No. L646^{20F 2022}

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan,^{learned counsel} appearing on behalf of the^{petitioner,learned} Government Pleader^{forFinance andPlanning} appearing on behalf^{of the respondent No.1 and Sri} Sapavat Sreenivas, learned^{Standing Counselfor SC} Co-operative Society^{Limitedappearang on behalf of} the respondent^Nos.2 to^4.

¶42

2 The o titioner aDD^{roachedthisCourt seekino the} Draver as und^er:

¶43

"...to issue an order or orders,^more particularly one in the nature of Writ of^Man&mus, declaring that the action of the^{Respondentin not} adding^yearly increments^{and H.R.A tothe} petitioners minlmum time scale^pay as the^sameis illegal, arbitrary and unjust^{and consequently} direct the Respondents to^{grant yearly annual} grade incremertts and H.R.A to the^{petitioneralong} with minimum time scale^{with effect from 2019as} per the orders passed in W.P.No.267BB of²⁰⁷⁷ reported in 2Ol7^{(6) ALD638 and to pass..."}

¶44

¶45

¶46

SN,J W.P.No.16462 of 2022

¶47

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner was appointed as an NMR (Attendant/Driver) in 1992 with the 4th respondent society. Despite G.O.Ms.No.193 (1990) and G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.12.1994, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the regularization of NMR services, the petitioner's case was not considered by the respondents. On 27.07.2010, the 1't respondent granted the minimum time scale to two similarly placed candidates but excluded the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14396 of 2016 seeking the minimum time scale. On 26.10.2021. th resoondents oranted the min rmum time scale atta ched to the oost of Office Sub ord inate. with elioibilitv for annua I increments but without othe service benefits to the oetitroner.

¶48

It is the further the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner, vide detailed representations dated 15.lt.2O2O and O7.17.2021,, requested the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to grant the yearly increments due to the petitioner. However, despite the said represe n tatio ns, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 had not considered the petitioner,s request for the grant of yearly increments and House Rent

¶49

¶50

SN,J W.P.No.15452 of 2022

¶51

Allowance^(HRA) as on date.^{Inspite of several requests of} the petitioner, the^petitioner's request^{for grant of minimum} time scale^pay w.e.f.2019 had not been^{considered as on} date. Aggrieved by the same, the^{petitionerfiled the} present writ petition.

¶52

5 PERU ED THE REC ORD:

¶53

(A). The Aoex Court in a iudoment reo^{rted in} 20L7 r me co s 148 of Pun and others vs Iaoiit Sinqh and others at^{Paras 54 and} its sub-Daras⁽¹⁾ 2)(3), of t^{hesaid iudoment} observed as under:

¶54

"54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above^{controversY had.concluded,} that temporary emptoyees^{were not entitbd, bthe} minimum of the regular^{pay-scale, merelyfor the reason,} that the activities carried on by^{daily-wagers and regular} employees were similar.^{The full bench however, made two} exceptions. Temporary employees,^{who fell in eitherof the} two exceptions, were held^entitled to^{wages atthe} minimum of the^{pay-scaledrawn by regularemployees.} The exceptions recorded by^{the full benchof the High Court} in the impugned^{judgment are extractedhereunder:-}

¶55

"(1) A daity wager, ad hoc or contractual^appointee against the regular sanctioned^{posts, if appointed} after undergoing a selection^{process basedupon} fairness and equatity of^{opportunity to all other} eligible candidates, shall^{be entitled to minimum of} the regular^pay scale from^{the date of engagement'}

¶56

¶57

sN,j W.P.No.16462 of 2022

¶58

(2) But if ilv wa ad hoc or contra ual no n a a, tr r nd etr ervt a vaile con tinuouslv, with notional break, bv the ta vern t t tru nta li s for u lo e I for s dailv waoers. adhoc or contra ctu.al apo ointees hall n tn, of ere r a scale without anv allo DCe.s on the um n at f ren lna ila an ha wo d such lon en ti. an uita rt h sc ed i, su ca orv of oe n s Their claim for u if ve n red , ter of all DE issib sch e.

¶59

(j) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractuat employee sha'tj be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

¶60

(B) The rel eva nt Dortion of the Ju domen t d o.o t7 t s urt^t as ln W-P .No.2 788 of 2O17 in "P. adar Basha nd ot ers Vs. the State of A.P. reported in 2O1 7 (6) ALD 638 is extracted hereu nder:

¶61

"In oui view, the petitioners are entifled to the relief claimed by them based on the above_ mentioned precedents. en h wrs al qoan qbvt e definition of "time s le of av" in Rulino1(a) of Rule-9of the An hra

/^I

SN,J W.P-No.16462 of²⁰²²

¶66

Pra esh F nda menta Rules. the Detitio^ers are entitled o Davment of increments,^This Rule reads as under:

¶67

"Time scale of Dav"^{meansDav wich} sub ect to anv^co d ition rescribed ln t^ese a rul rises bvDeriodical^{increments fro} mtnl um to axtmum. It indic^{tes theclass} ofD v hithert known a s Droqre tve.

¶68

The above-extra ct^{eddefi n ition} of "time scale of oav" leaves^{usn no doubt that} he of has cha n with chanoe of times by^{addition oF periodical} increments. Otherwise^{the expression"time scale"} would have no meaning^{at all.}

¶69

he li of th ove d sston re o hat a h eti n rs ha n edt rnrmu ime sc h are entitled to ddition of increments^'from time to time i the mini um time scale without beino entitled to^{allother allowances} which a reqular emolov^{ee is entitled.}

¶70

The learned Government^Pleaderfor Services (An(hra^{Pradesh)submitted that the} Court may consider limiting^{the grant of annual} grade increments to the petitioners to a^reasonable past period as, the relief of^payment of arrears,^if granted from the time of extension of^the

¶71

¶72

¶73

SN,J W.P.No.16462 of 2022

¶74

minimum time scale to the petitioners, would cause huge burden on the exchequer.

¶75

Though in strict sense, the petitioners are entitled to all the arrears, keeping in view the fact that they have approached the Tribunal only in the year 2013 and also the public interest, we restrict the said benefit only from the date of filing of the said O.A. by the petitioners. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The resoondents shall revise the mrntmu m time scale of oav of the oe itioners bv addinq the annual qrade increments as and when thev fell due from time to time."

¶76

(c). The Division Bench of this Court in the iudoment of "Gover nment of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. S.Naoe ara Rao and others" reDo rted in (2012) 2 ALD 26 observed as under:

¶77

"There is no dispute that all of them were given regular scale of pay and also conferred the benefit of revised pay scales as and when new scales were implemented in the State of Andhra Pradesh. After giving regular scale of pay and also granting annual increments for some time, various Municipalities and Municipal Corporations stopped releasing increments and giving revised scales of pay, necessitating adjudication of the same by the

¶78

¶79

SN,] W.P.No.16462 of²⁰²²

¶80

Andhra Pradesh Administrative^Tribunal'The res ondents^are casua I /NMR /temDo^rarv Class-I V emolove^es, who^{do similar work and} ts e imilar fu ns s r Cla -IV em olove s. The Drinciol eofe ual oav for eoual^{work wouldbar thestate or its} aqe ts from denvi^{no annuI oradeincrem ents} and revi sed scale^{of oav to the resoondents.} We are, therefo^{renot imoressed withthe} r ent h tt ran fan f ade tnc ments or^qra nt of^{revised oav scalesto} the resDondents would contravene the vtslon sof e A.P. Act² of^L994."

¶81

(D) The definiti nof t me scale of oav" in Ruli n(I 1^(a) of Rule9of Andhra Prad esh Fundamental^{Rules reads as under:}

¶82

"Time scale of^{pay" meanspay which subject} to any condition^{prescribedin these rules, rises by} periodical increments from a^{minimum to} maximum. It^{indicatesthe class of pay hitherto} known as^{progressive."}

¶83

DI cussION A DCO CLUSI ON:

¶84

6 Learned counsel a DDea rino on^beh!fofthe oetitioner submits^{that when therelief ofminimum} ti sc rse ne an al r

t \ I

SN,J W.P.No.16462 of 2022

¶89

ncrem nts nn e deni ar raril an en petitioner's reDres entations date d 15.11.2020 and 07.1L.202L needs to be nece ssa ri lv considered bv the respondents.

¶90

This Court opines that the scale of pay has to change with the change of time by addition of periodical increments; otherwise, the expression "time scale,, would have no meaning at all.

¶91

This Court opines that the representations of the petitioner need to be considered in light of the definition of "time scale of pay," as well as the view. expressed by the Apex Court in its Judgment reported in 2Ot7 (1) SCC page 148 in "State of Punjab v. Jagjith Singh andr others,,, The Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.08.2017 passed in W.p. No. 26788 of 2Ot7 reported in 2Ol7 (6) ALD page 638 and the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (2012) 2 ALD 26, (referred to and extracted above).

¶92

9. Taki nq into considera tion:

¶93

*,.

¶94

¶95

SN,.J W.P.No.15462^{of 2022}

¶96

The aforesaid facts^{and circumstancesof} a)

¶97

the case,

¶98

The submissions^{made by thelearned} b) counsel appearing^{on behatf of the petitionerand} learned Government^{Pleaderfor Finance and Planning} appearing on^{behalf of the respondentNo'1 and Sri} Sapavat Sreenivas,^{learned Standing Counselfor SC} Co-operative^{SocietyLimitedappearingon behalf of} the resPondent^{Nos.2 to 4,}

¶99

c) The Judgment^{of the ApexCourt reported} in 2OL7^{(1) SCC Page 148 in State of Punjab v' Jagjith} Singh and others^{(referredto and extracted above)'}

¶100

d) The^{judgment of this Courtdated 1q'O8'2O17} passed in W.P.No.26788^{of 2OL7 in P'Kadar Bashaand} others v. State^{of A.P., reportedin 2OL7 (6) ALD 638} (referred to and extracted^above),

¶101

e) The Judgment^{in"Government ofAndhra} Pradesh and^{Others Vs' S'Nageswara Rao and Others"} reported in^{(2OL2) 2ALD 26 (referred toand} extracted above),

¶102

¶103

¶104

SN,J M/.P. No.16462 of 2022

¶105

f) The fact that the petitaoner is being paid the minimum time scale with effect from 26.1O.2021, and that the petitioner had submitted representations to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 15.11.2O2O and 07.LL.2O2l requesting the grant of yearly increments as per the petitioner's legal entiilements, admittedly having not been considered as on date,

¶106

Ruling 31 (a) of Rule 9 of A.p. Fundamentat Rules,

¶107

The writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner, as put forth vide petitioner,s representations dated 15.11.2O2O and r 07.11.2021 addressed to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, seeking grant of Annual Grade Increments as per petitioner,s tegal entitlement duly taking into consideration the J m t fth ex u r rte n2 l7 1 c Pa^qe 148 in StateofP unt nd -Iaqii^hSinqh er n e ntd 1 8 01 d P No. 748 I 20L7 b ED vi o B n of thi Court reported in 2O17 (6) ALD oaoe 63g (referred to

¶108

¶109

5N,J W.P.No.16462 of²⁰²²

¶110

and extracted above),^{as well as the observations} made by the Division^{Bench of thisCourtin} Gov rnment of Andhr^{aPradeh and} thers s oando hers. re orted^{in(2072) 2ALD} Naq swara 26 (referred to and extracted^{above), in accordance} to taw and^pass appropriate^{orders on petitioner's} representataon dated^{15.11.2O2O and7'LL'ZO2L} seeking^grant of^{yearly incrementsto the petitioner} as per Rule - 31^{(a) of Rule 9 of A.P. Fundamental} Rules, within a^period of^{four (4) weeks from the date} of receipt of a copy^{of thisorder and duly} communicate the decision^{on th9petitioner's} representations to the^{petitionerherein' However,} there shall be no order^{as to costs.} r