Common Order:

1. The Writ Petitions are filed for the following relief:

                  “…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not extending minimum time scale of pay attached to the respective posts held by the petitioners in Revised Pay Scales from time to time with all usual allowances for extracting work with responsibilities on par with regular employees of their equivalent cadres from the date of their initial appointment by applying the principles of equal pay for equal work as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others reported in 2017 SCC (1) 148 to prevent exploitative enslavement, helpless, condition, poverty, prevailing unemployment and other disabilities of petitioner in paying consolidated pay by respondents which is less than half salary of regular last grade employees of decades of service by violating their right to life as unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, total arbitrary, unjust and unfair and consequently direct the respondents:-

                  i. To pay minimum time scale of pay to the petitioners attached to their respective posts held by the petitioners herein, with all usual allowances on par with regular employees of their cadres from the date of initial appointment to till date with arrear by applying principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh & others reported in 2017 SCC (1) 148 to pay equal pay for equal work.

                  ii. Not to remove all the petitioners attached to their respective posts held by the petitioners herein and continue all the petitioners attached to their respective posts held by the petitioners herein and also award exorbitant costs in driving the petitioners to the court of law to apply the principle of equal pay for equal work will all consequential and other service benefits and pass such other orders may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Since, the facts and circumstances of both the writ petitions are one and the same this Court inclined to pass a common order.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners have been engaged in the present posts at A.P. Residential Schools working under the control of the 2nd respondent society duly established by the 1st respondent on daily wage basis. The petitioners have been discharging their duties sincerely and without any remarks. The petitioners have completed their service for more than 2 years to 16 years respectively. The petitioners are discharging their duties and responsibilities similar to the regular employees. But the petitioners are being paid with the paltry daily wages which is less than the minimum time scale attached to their respective posts. Further, the respondents are trying to remove the petitioners from their service. Hence, the Writ Petitions.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were engaged in their respective posts at residential schools working under the control of the 2nd respondent on a daily wage basis in the sanctioned posts. Since from the date of selection of the petitioners, they have been discharging their duties. The petitioners have possessed requisite qualifications and have been discharging duties on par with regular employees for several years. However, the petitioners are being paid only paltry daily wages without extending the minimum time scale, contrary to the settled principle of law that ‘equal pay to equal work’ as held in State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others(2017 (1) SCC 148).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since the minimum time scale was not extended, similarly situated persons filed writ petitions, wherein interim orders were granted directing the respondents to pay the minimum time scale to pay, attached to the posts. The respondents herein also implemented the said orders of this Court and have been paying minimum time scale. While things stood thus, the respondents are trying to remove the petitioners from their service without following due process of law and in violation of the orders of this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that APREI Society, constituted in the year 1972, which is registered under the A.P. Public Societies Registration Act, 2001. It has its own By-laws and Service (Recruitment) Rules in respect of its employees. Regarding any service matter, if not specifically provided in the Rules, the relevant provisions of the A.P. State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, A.P. Educational Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, A.P. Education Rules, A.P. Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules etc., as amended from time to time along with the executive orders and clarificatory instructions shall apply ‘Mutatis- Mutandis’ to all the officers and staff of the APREI Society as per their respective cadre. The society is managing 50 residential schools, 10 residential junior colleges and 1 residential degree college in different regions of Andhra Pradesh State, after bifurcation of the then composite State of A.P., as per the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioners herein were engaged neither on a contract basis, outsourcing basis nor regular procedure as specified in the Service Rules of the Society. The petitioners were engaged without prior approval of the Government and the post concurrence of the Finance Department, as their engagement was purely temporary and a stop- gap arrangement. He also asserts that regarding the appointment of non-teaching staff, the process as per Rule 4(iv) of the Service Rules should be followed through the District Level Committee i.e. i) District Collector or his nominee – Chairman, ii) District Educational Officer – Member and iii) Principal of the Institution – Member – Convenor.

9. Further, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioners herein were not selected through either prescribed process of selection or as per the norms of the Society. As per the budget provision, respondent No.2 himself decided to engage the manpower as a stop gap arrangement against the needy non-teaching posts purely temporarily with a fixed honorarium to avoid hardship in the maintenance of the residential institutions. Therefore, the question of issuing appointment orders to the petitioners does not arise. No public notification was given. The selection committees were not formed as per the norms. The rule of Reservation has not been followed. Neither a written examination/interview nor any other selection method was followed. The temporary engagement will be dispensed with at any time if there is no work need for their services or if a regular employee is transferred/promoted/appointed in the post or if any irregularity/ negligence/incapability is found on the part of the candidate. The engagement of manpower for stoop gap arrangement will not have any right to claim for continuation.

10. Given the irregularities in engaging the manpower in non-teaching posts and enhancement of remuneration to the temporarily engaged manpower, the Government examined the issue by comparing with the sister societies i.e. APSWREIS, APTWREIS and APBCWREIS and observed that the said societies have adopted outsourcing system for required personnel, through Andhra Pradesh Corporation for Outsourced Services (APCOS), which is prevails over this method since the policy was framed by the Government vide Circular Memo No.GAD01-SU0MISC/31/2019-SU-I dated 20.11.2019 read with G.O.Ms.No.126, G.A. (SU.I) Dept., dated 18.10.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.136, G.A.(SU.I) Dept., dated 01.11.2019. Hence, the Government decided to adopt an outsourcing system in APREIS institutions.

11. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents did not deny the claim of the petitioners and only to avoid payment of minimum time scale of pay to the petitioners, on par with similarly placed persons, disposed the services of the petitioners.

12. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that there is no dispute regarding engaging the services of the petitioners by one way or other. It is settled principle of law that once engaged an ad-hoc employee he cannot be replaced with another ad-hoc employee on the ground not duly slected. He can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure as prescribed, which is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rattan Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others((1985) 4 SCC 43) and Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others((2007) 13 SCC 292). It is also a settled preposition that an employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than the another person who performs the same duties and responsibilities in a welfare State, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh((2017) 1 SCC 148).

13. In State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

                  “(a) An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities, certainly not, in a welfare State; that such action is demeaning and strikes at the very foundation of human dignity;

                  (b) Anyone who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily and he does so only to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity;

                  (c) Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position and that the said action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation;

                  (d) With reference to the application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, the sole factor that requires determination by the Court is, whether the employees before the Court were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by regular employees holding the same/corresponding posts.”

14. In the case on hand, going by the averments in the writ affidavits and counter affidavits, the petitioners were duly engaged temporarily. As observed supra, the length of service rendered by the petitioners, ranges from a minimum of two years to a maximum of 16 years. However, contended that the said engagement is temporary, without following the procedure known to law is lacks merits for the reason that the services of petitioners were engaged more than a decade.

15. In Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors.( (2007) 4 SCC 737) , Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows:

                  "16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available.”

16. In Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. v. Indian Railway Major and Minor Caterers Association and Ors.( (2011) 12 SCC 792), the Apex Court held:

                  “"2. By the impugned order, the High Court has interfered with the Catering Policy of 2005 in respect of reservations. By now it is a well settled principle of law that policy decisions of the Government should not be interfered with in a routine manner unless the policy is contrary to the provisions of statutory rules or of the Constitution. Nothing has been brought to our notice that the Policy is contrary to the provisions of the statutory rules or the Constitution. For this simple reason, we set aside the order of the High Court impugned herein.”

17. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle in Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India and Ors.,( 2022 SCC OnLine SC 533). The relevant part of the same reads as follows:

                  “21. We shall now proceed to analyse the precedents of this Court on the ambit of judicial review of public policies relating to health. It is well settled that the Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary.”

18. Thus, given the expressions of the Apex Court, this Court cannot find fault with the decision of the respondent authority to engage employees on an outsourcing basis. However, considering the length of service rendered by the petitioners, the respondents' authorities ought to have considered continuing the petitioners’ services till the Government appoints employees under either any policy of scheme or on regular means. In the absence of same, the respondents should consider the petitioners' candidature and engage them on an outsourcing basis keeping in view the length of service rendered by them. The respondent/government shall not ignore the principle that the right to live is a fundamental right being a welfare state. Disengaging the petitioners from services, all of a sudden will cause irreparable loss and hardship to them and their livelihood and their families will be affected. The said action of respondents is contrary to the principle laid down as under.

19. Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, by order dated 24.08.2023, in W.P.No.8700 of 2021 (S-KSAT), in the facts of that case, held that having utilized the services of the Hamalies during the heydays of their lifetime and at the fag end of their lives ought not to be permitted to leave them in a destitute situation and the said action would be exploitative to say the least which is impermissible having regard to the constitutional scheme as held in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others, Vs. Umadevi (3) and others((2006) 4 SCC 1).

20. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgments as referred supra, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the writ petitions with the following directions.

21. Accordingly the Writ Petitions are allowed with the following directions:

                  i. Respondent No.2 and the principals of the respective institutions shall re-engage the services of the petitioners and continue their services in their respective posts till the authorities engage staff as per the policy if any or by regular means, based on work need.

                  ii. If respondent No.2 or the Principals intend to engage manpower in non- teaching posts, through APCOS, the authority shall take steps to include the names of petitioners in APCOS, keeping in view the services rendered by the petitioners to the institutions and continue the services of petitioners through APCOS.

                  iii. Further, the respondents shall extend the minimum time scale attached to the posts of the petitioners at the earliest.

                  iv. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.