Allowed

B Saidaiah, Nalgonda Dist. v. the State of Ts.,P.Raj, Hyderabad, and 4 Otrs.

Telangana HC13 Feb 2025WP/25998/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Bill Collector engaged by Gram Panchayat resolution in 1988, whose regularization proceedings of 1994 were cancelled en masse without hearing, sought regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212. Holding his four decades of service could not be disowned, the Court directed regularization from 11.11.1994 with service counting for pension benefits only.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to regularize petitioner's services reckoning service period from 11.11.1994 within two months; no costs; no retrospective monetary benefits.

B Saidaiah, Nalgonda Dist. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY,THE^{THIRTEENTHDAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO: 25998 0F 2017}

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Saidaiah, S/o.^{Guravaiah,Aged about 49vears Bill Collector'} fturXiui,iilth dirm^{Fr^.rilvit' ri'"*' *tmr la rvllnddl Natsonda District}

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of^{Telangana rep by its Principal} .Secretary'^{Panchayat Raj and} Rr;riD";.l"pmentbeparrmbnt,^{Secretariat,Hyderabad}

¶12

2 The Collectoi^{(pRt, NalgondaDistrict,}

¶13

5 fn" oi.tti"t Pdnciiayat^{btficer. Nalgonda District} '^- ;. ti;; Dil.;;ai^{Pun"h"yrt officer, rrTrryalagudaNalgonda' District} 5. The State^{of tetangana,"re;. by'iil Principal S6cretary' Finance (HRM I)} Deoartment. Secretaiiat,^Hyderabad'

¶14

Deoartment. Secretaiiat,^Hyderabad'

¶15

1. fi5'ii;:;;;;r";;-G';;i-Frn"r,,vut.^{rep bv its panchavatsecretary'} Damaracharla mandal,^{Nalgonda District}

¶16

(R6 is imPleaded as^{per C.O. dt' lot}Bt2}l7in WPMP No' 3271312O17l.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstancesstaiedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourt.maybe nlcaqerl to issue a writ in the^{nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ'} 5;';; o'ir""ti*, i".irrinl^{1'" action of the respondentsin not regularizhgthe} services of the^{petitione, ,"t p", G O'Ms No 212, Finance and Planning (FW PC} f fi i^{-olprrt." nl, dt 22-a-1'g94and consequentlydirect the respondentsto} consider the^{case of tne petitlonerfor regularizationof his services as Bill} C"ffl"t.r as^{per G.O.Ms.No.212, 212. FinanceandPlasming(FWPC lll)} O"prrtr"""t, aLZZ-+-rcSq '^{with effect from a due date' with all consequential} benefits

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF^{2017(WPMP.NO:32232 0F 20171}

¶20

Petitionundersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in support of the p"iition, tl.,u Hign Court may be pleased to} direct the^{respondentsto grantthe minimum wagesat the minimum of the pay} s;;b i;ithe^{lowestgraae]in the regularpay-scale; attachedto the regularpost}

¶21

' .^--"-7

¶22

in which^the P^{etitioner is working,as revisedfrom timet} ; time, as^{per the} Judgment^{of theHon'ble SuPremeCourt of lndiain a caseofItate of Punjab and} others Vs^{JagiitSinghand others rep ortedin 2016Law Suit ( SC) 1057, forthwith,} pending reg ularization^{of his services,pending final disPosalc,f the main W.P} r.A. NO: 10^{F 2017WVMP.NO: 3999oF 201 7t}

¶23

Between:

¶24

by its^{F'anchaYatSecretarY} The Kesavapuram^{GramPanchayat Rep} or"m.rud"r"fi^{N'4andal'Nalgonda District}

¶25

...PET|TlONER,^{RESPONDENTNo'6}

¶26

AND

¶27

about 49 l/ears^Bill Collector,

¶28

1. B Saidaiah, Sio. Guravaiah,^Aged Damaracharla^lVIandal, Nalgonda KesavaPuram Grama^PanchaYat, District.

¶29

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶30

2 The State^{of Telangana, rep by its Principal Sec'-t'tary'Panchayat Raj} and Ru ral Development^{D"p"J'ttLnt'Secretariat'H v'i e rab ad}

¶31

, Thd a,.\llo.tor rPR) Naloonda^UlStflCL'- ; ii'i; E;i;;i-nJncnavat^{bfficerNalsondaDistrtct,-} 5 The Divisionrt^{ern.nuvJi'iiffit;;-tti'v-;bs'a?'l1l!'Inda} Finance^{Dtstrict(HRM I)} 6 rhe state of Ielansani.'il:"iy;i;'Pil8ilit's"t'i "v Depart:nent^{SecretariatHyderatlao}

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

petition under Section 151 cpc^{praying that.in the ,- iicumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filedin suppo;i ;; il ;i1;;'in"} 1'91^{coutr mavbe pleasedto} dismiss^{the abovewrit petition against this answeringresr)(,ndent by vacatingthe} interim^{order dated 16/08r2bi'Z-;;;t;; t; wPMPN;32i3'z or 2017in w P No} 25998 of²⁰¹³

¶34

Counsel^{for the Fetitioner:SRI'S' GOPAL RAO}

¶35

Counsel^{for the RespondentNos'1to4: GPFOR PANCH'A{AT RAJ} & RURAL^DEV(TG)

¶36

Counsel^{for the RespondentNo'5: GP FOR FINANCE & PI ANNING (TG)}

¶37

Counsel^{for the RespondentNo'6: SRI G NAREN-DERREt)DY} (sc FoRTG ZPP-Ml)P-GPPS)

¶38

The Court^{madethe following:ORDER}

cj{/

wp_25998_2O17 NBK, ]

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶43

WRIT PETITION No.25998 of 2017

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

The case of the petitioner, as per the writ afhdavit, is that^petitioner was initially appointed as "Carrobar" (Bill Collector) on 20.08.1988^{on a} fixed monthly honorarium of Rs.40, following a Resolution^{passed by the} Grama Panchayat due to the urgent requirement^{for manpowerto collect} house tax and engage in village development^{work. His remuneration was} subsequently revised periodically, with the^{current salarystandingat} Rs.2000 per month. The Govemment Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.212,^dated April 22, 1994, stipulating that all daily^wage or^{consolidated pay workers} who were in service as on 25. I^{1 .} i 993, and^{whohad completed five} continuous years of service by that date,^were to^{have theirservices} regularized. By this criterion, the^{petitioner claims fuIl eligibiliry, having} already served more than five^years by^{the cutoffdate. It is furlherstated} that his eligibitity was fonnally recognized and^{recommendedby} administrative officials, specifically,^{the ExtensionOfficer (Panchayat Raj),} Miryalaguda, forwarded a^proposal for his^{regularizatiohvia Letter} No.45l94 dated 02.11.1994. This^{proposal was subsequentty supportedby} the 4th respondent through Letter No.Al/1934194^{dated 04.11.1994.Acting} on these recommendations, the 3rd^{respondent issued Proceedings} No.Bl/4769l94lPts., dated 11.11.1994,^{granting the petitioner regular time} scale of Rs.1375 2375 with immediate^{effect. However,despitethe issuance} ofthese proceedings, the petitioner's services^{werenever regularized under} the G.O.Ms.No.2l2 for "reasons best^{knownto the authorities."}

¶46

1.1 He made several representations^{but there was no action by the} respondent authorities. He continues to^{work in the same role, discharging}

¶47

¶48

wp,25998²⁰¹⁷ NSK, ]

¶49

similar responsibilities as those of a regular employee. l- e invokes the legal doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" and relies on the.ir dgrnent of Hon'ble Supreme Cotrt's in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Sitqh & Ors.^(2016), where it rvas held that temporary, contractual, or ad-hoc r,rorkers performing duties equivalent to regular employees are entitled to the minirnum of the pay scale applicable to the post. Based on this precede rr, petitioner asserts that, even pending regularization, he is entitled to lr:ceive at least the minimum wages attached to the post of Bill Collector.'l-re cunent salary of Rs.2000 per month is grossly inadequate in the Jrr.:vailing economic conditions.

¶50

A countel aflldavit is filed by respondent No..l-District Panchayat OfIcer, Nalgonda District, opposing the petitioner's prayer for regularization of service. It is contended that the petitior-rer failed to satisly the eligibility criteria under GOMs.No.2l2, dated 22.1.14.1994, and that he was appointed as Bill Collector on 20.08.1988 no.- by the competent authority but by the Sarpanch of Kesavapuram Grrrrrr Panchayat, and according to GOMs.No.ll4, Panchayat Raj & l{.rral Developnrent Department, dated 2 1 .03. 1988, the respondent No.3 al,:,r' e is the competent authority to appoint Bill Collectors.

¶51

2.1 It is contended that the implementation^, rf G.O.Ms.No.212 must comply strictly with procedural norms, and that liri P.V. Dange, the then District Panchayat OfIcer, acted beyond his au thority by issuing proceedings No. Bll47 69194/Pts on 1 1. I I . 1994, regular)iing the petitioner's services based on a proposal from the Extension Ctfflcer (Panchayats), Miryalaguda, and that this action was done without proper verification, without recommendation from the Divisional Panchayat t.)fficer, and in clear violation of the rules laid down in the governmer.i orders. It is also

¶52

¶53

wp_25998-2017 N8K,I

¶54

contended that the irregularity was identified by the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Nalgonda, who issued Memo No. B1/5 184/94lPts on 20.12.1994. This Memo ordered the cancellation of regularizatlon orders for 255 individuals, including the petitioner, whose appointments were deemed i[legal. Furthermore, the memo explicitly directed all Extension Officers and Divisional Panchayat Officers not to pay time-scale salaries to such individuals. The executive authorities of the Gram Panchayat, Kesavapuram, accordingly refrained from implementing the regularization proceedings issued earlier.

¶55

Learned counsel refutes the applicability of the^judgment of Supreme Courl in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singht. They assert that the principle ol "equal pay for equal work" cannot be extended to the petitioner, as he is not working against a cleaq sanctioned vacancy, nor was he tawfully appointed. According to the respondent, the Supreme Court's ruling applies only to employees who are otherwise validly engaged but discriminated against in terms of remuneration. Since the petitioner's appointment itself lacks legality and he does not occupy a formally sanctioned post, the respondent argues that the doctrine cannot be invoked to claim time-scale pay.

¶56

3.1 It is contended that the petitioner suppressed the facts and obtained interim order dated 16.08.2017, with regard to^payment of minimum of the pay scale of the post of Bill Collector. It is contended that under G.O.Ms.No.69 dated 29.02.2000, budgetary sanction for establishment expenditure in Gram Panchayats must not^{exceed 3OYo of} normal income, and there is no autholity vested in the Panchayat^{to grant}

12017 (1) scc 148

wp 25998 2017 NB(, J

i I i I tI

I I

minimum pay scales to workers outside the sanctionerl cstablishment, and therefore any payment of a regular time-scale salary wou d be unauthorized.

¶63

Respondent No.6-Panchayat Secretary of Ke.avapuram Grama Panchayat, also filed a counter affidavit, opposing the p<:l-itioner's claim for regularization ol service and entitlement to minirrrum wages under G.O.Ms.No.2l2, dated 22.04.1994. [t is contended 1lrat the petitioner's engagement as Bill Colleclor was unauthorized, lackin..1 in both legal and procedural compliance, and that the petitioner is not entitled either to regularization or to a claim for minimum scale of pay. 't, is contended that the respondent No.6 has verified the Grama Panr:hayat records on I1.01.2014, and affinns that while a Resolution was inleed passed by the then Grarn Panchayat Committee on 20.08. 1988, to appc int the petitioner as a "Corrobar" (Bill Collector) for the purpose of colle:cting house tax, the financiaI records contradict the petitioner's assertion c,f continuous service since that date. According to the acquittance legister, tl.re petitioner began receiving consolidated payments only from the year 19!):l onwards.^-I'here is no documentar,v evidence supporting his claim of h;l,ring worked since 20.08.1S88, which directly undercuts one of the k.e,r prernises of his eligibility fbr regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212.

¶64

4.1^'Ihe respor.rdent No.6 further acknowledg,:s that the Extension Officer of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Darreracherla Mandal, submitted details of the petitioner's service to the 3"r respondent-District Panchayat Officer through a letter dated 11.08.2017, based on which, a proceeding bearing No. B1/4769l94lPTS was issued try the 3'd respondent on 1 1 . I 1 . 1994, purporting to regularize the petitioner's ,;erwices by placing him in an Attender post with a sanctioned time scaler, however, the said

wp_zs998 2017 NBK,.I

proceedings have not been implemented, thereby the petitioner cannot be treated as a regular employee.

¶69

4.2 It is contended that the petitioner's initial appointment itself was unauthorized and lacked the requisite sanction from the govemment or the competent authority. As such, any service rendered was on a purely consolidated basis, paid from Gram Panchayat general funds without adherence to any formal recruitment process. In support of this, the respondent cites G.O.Ms.No.69, dated 29.02.2000, which sets a budgetary ceiling, stipulating that the sanctioned establishment budget shall not exceed 30% of the nonnal income of the Gram Panchayat; and there is no provision within this budgetary framework to grant minimum pay scale benefits to any worker unless they are occupying a clear and sanctioned vacancy, and in the inslant case, the petitioner, not being appointed to a sanctioned post, cannot claim regularization or minimum wages.

¶70

Heard Mr. S. Gopal Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and leamed Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development. Perused the record.

¶71

Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted at the outset that the respondent authorities do not dispute that a Resolution was passed on 20.08.1988 by the then Gram Panchayat Committee appointing the petitioner as a "Corobar" (Bill Collector) for the purpose of collecting house tax. This crucial fact is not denied but rather coroborated by the assertion ofthe 6m respondent, who states that payment records exist only from 1994 onwards. The absence of payment records for the earlier years does not, by itself, negate the fact of appointment and actual service. Importantly, the petitioner's claim of continuous service stands corroborated in the 3'd respondent's own proceedings bearing

¶72

¶73

wp 25998 2017 NBK, J

¶74

No.Bl/4769l94lPTS, dated 1 1.1 1.1994, wherein the p,rtitioner's services were regularized in the Attender post and he was placec on a time scale of Rs.l375-2375; and the regularization order was issut:c on the basis ofa proposal forwardcd by the Extension Officer (Panchayat ). Miryalguda, and supported by the Divisional Panchayat Officer. The respc rdents' subsequent inaction in giving cft'ect to this older, despite no expiets cancellation of thc same under due process, reveals both administrativ,: rnconsistency and arbitrariness.

¶75

6,1 Furlher, the respondents' contention that 1hr: appointment was illegal as it rvas made by the Sarpanch instead of th,: Distlict Panchayat Oftjcer, and therefbre cannot be regularized, cannot be countenanced. Even assuming a procedural irregularity in the initial appoLnr-ment, such defect stands cured by thc continued acceptance of services.^,rayment of wages, and-most significantly the initiation of a formal regu arization proposal, which culminated in the issuance of the aforementioned rr:gularization order dated 11.11.t994. The fact that the 3'd respondent l:imself issued the regularization order contradicts the argument thar the petitioner's appointment was irregu lar.

¶76

At this^juncture, it is relevant to refer to the^judgrrrent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), which uneqt ivocally held that temporary ol casual workers performing the samr: duties as regular employees al'e entitled to receive minimum pay at pa. with the regular employees. The respondents seek to distinguish thrs j udgment on the premise that the petitioncr is not working against i. "clear vacancy." However, this argument cannot be sustained when it is e.'rLdent from the third respondent's proceedings dated 1 I . I I .l 994 that the post ofAttender (though

-7

wp 25998 2OL1 NBK,I

the petitioner was functioning as Bill Collector) was considered necessary, and that the petitioner was within age limits and otherwise eligible.

¶81

7 .l The argument with regard to budgetary constraints under G.O.Ms.No.69 dated 29.02.2000, capping the establishment expenditure at 30Yo of the Gram Panchayat's income, is misplaced, as the said G.O. relates to future budgeting norms and does not invalidate prior appointments or regularization orders issued under G.O.Ms.No.2 12, which itself was a remedial measure for absorbing irregularly appointed employees who had completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993. Further, it is the specific contention of respondent No.6, bome out by the record, that the petitioner was appointed in I 988, but he was not appointed by competent authority and therefore the appointment is irregular.

¶82

7.2 Be that as it may, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in 1988 based on a Resolution by the Gram Panchayat due to urgent requirement of the services of petitioner (i.e., a Bill Collector) for collecting house taxes etc., and the petitioner having joined the duties and perfonning his duties cannot be put to disadvantage for no fault of his, and merely for the reason that his appointment was not done by a District Panchayat Officer. It is to be noted that the petitioner having rendered the services and his services having been accepted and utilized by the respondent authorities cannot now disown the appointment made by themselves on one ground or the other, to cause undue loss to the petitioner. Further, the fact that the earlier proceedings dated 11.11.1994 regularizing the petitioner were not implemented due to a later memo, i.e., Memo No.B 1/5184/94lPts, dated 20.12.1994, allegedly cancelling mass regularizations, does not suffice in the absence of a hearing afforded to the petitioner or any specific order reve.sifig-ihe benefit granted to him individually.

¶83

wp 25998 2017 NBK,.J

¶84

7 .3 In this regard, the irnpugned inaction of^t.hr: respondents^also suffers from a procedural infinnity. The^petitioner was ne!er^{given a hearing} before depriving him of the benefits of the regularization^{proceedings dated} I 1 . I 1 . 1994. llven assuming that tlie ground of appoir.rtment by^{a non-} competent authority is taken lor the sake of argument, ro show-cause^notice was issued to the petitioner prior to cancelling regular^: rrtion^proceedings. and no lormal cancellation order was passed agai rst the^petitioner. Moreover,, the continued use of the petitioner's serv^ces for^{almost four} decades without fair remuneration or recognition is high['r unreasonable and arbitrary on the parl of the respondent authorities, and^r iolative ofArticles 14 and2l of the Constitution of India.

¶85

In this context, it is relevant to refer to the^jtr(.gtnent of Hon'ble Supreme Courl in Jaggo vs. Union of India2, whereir:^t-he apex Court, by referring to State of Karnataka vs. Umadevil, hgld s5 li.rllows:

¶86

"26. While the^{judgment in} Umadevi^{(supra) sought to curtail the} practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its^princlples are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate clttims of longserving employees. This^judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointrnents. lt categoric rlly held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for rnore than ten years, should be considered for regularization ar:; a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the^judgrnent is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to inriiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack^ildherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the

¶87

'72024^tNSc1034 3 (2006) 4 SCC 1

wp_25998 2017 NBK, '

I I

judgment in Umadevi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking^the iudgment's^{explicit acknowledgment of caseswhere regularization} is appropriate. This selective application distorts the^judgment's spirit and^purpose, effectively weaponizing it against^employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

¶92

ln light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by^examplein providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on^a temporary basis for extended^periods, especially^{when theirroles} are integral to the organization's functioning,^{not only contravenes} international labour standards but also exposes the^{organization to} legal challenges and undermines emPloyee morale.^{By ensuring fair} employment practices,^government institutions^{can reducethe} burden of unnecessary litigation,^{promotejob security, anduphold} the principles ofjustice and fairness that^{they are meant to embody.} This approach aligns with international standards^{and sets a} positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment^{of labour practicesin the} country."

¶93

It is not the case olthe respondent authorities^{that the petitioner was/is} not able to perform his duties or that^{he was not qualified for appointment} as Bill Cotlector. Considering the^judgment of^{Hon'ble Supreme Court in} Umadevi (supra), and also the^{judgment in Jaggo (supra),this Court holds} that thc petitioner's appointment^{way back in 1988 cannotbe rendered} unrecognized. The authorities having utilized^{the services of the petitioner} for almost four decades cannot deny him the^{relief of regularisation.}

¶94

In that view of the matter, the^{I't respondent is directed to pass} appropriate orders regularizing^{the services of the petitionerby reckoning} the service period from^{11.11.1994,withintwo months from the dateof this}

wp 25998 2017 NBK, ]

1 i

(

order. The petitioner shall not claim^{retrospective mon,rtary benefits,i.e.,} from 1994 to the date of regularization, on account of ttis^{order; however,} he shall be entitled to count his previous setwice^{(i.e., fror.n I 1.1 f . i994 to the} date of regularization) for pension and retirement^{benelils only.}

¶100

¶101

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to th,: cxtent as directed above. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending. if arv. shatl stand^closed.

¶102

SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD TIEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary,^{PanchayatRa.i and Rural Dev''rlopment Department'} Secretariat, T.S..Hyderabad.

¶108

2 The Collector^(PR), Nalgonda^District,- 3 The District Panchayat^{Offrcer.NalgondaDistrict.-} 4 tfre Oivisionat Panchayat^{Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgor1;r District.} 5 Th;^- Prin;ip;l Secr6tary,^Financ'e Fnrrl^{tl-Dep,rrtment,Secretariat,} T S Hvderabad.

¶109