| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 144
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Writ Appeal No. 888 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA |
| Parties : The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep By Its Principal Secretary Education (Ie) Department Secretariat , Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur & Others Versus K.V. Ravi Sankar & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appellants: GP For Services II. For the Respondents: B. Ramesh, SC For Board Of Intermediate Education, Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate. |
| Date of Judgment : 31-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Civil Procedure Code - Section 60 -
|
| Judgment :- |
|
A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.
Introductory:-
1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the Order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.2351 of 2020.
2. The appellants are the respondents 1 to 23 in the Writ Petition. The respondents No.1 to 16 herein are the writ petitioners.
3. The writ petition was filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the annual grade increments and HRA from the date of payment of minimum times scale extended as per G.O.Ms.No.352 Education (I E 1) Department, dated 01.10.1994 along with arrears as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release annual grade increments and HRA from the date of payment of minimum time scale extended as per the said G.O..
4. The writ petition was allowed vide orders dated 29.10.2024.
Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides.
6. For the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners and the respondents, as and how they are referred in the impugned orders.
Case of the Writ Petitioners:-
7. [i] All the writ petitioners are working as part time Junior lecturers in full time sanctioned posts of vocational courses in various government Junior Colleges and all of them were appointed prior to 25.11.2019 on part time basis. They are possessing requisite educational and technical qualifications for appointment to the post of lecturer in Junior Colleges. The details of the appointment, number of years of service, writ petitioner wise are as follows:-
Sl.No.
| Name of the petitioner
| Date of appointment
| No. of years of service
| 01.
| K.V. Ravi Shankar
| 01.08.1992
| 27
| 02.
| D.Adinarayana Rao
| 31.10.1990
| 29
| 03.
| N.Srirama Murthy
| 15.06.1992
| 27
| 04.
| B.Srinivas Rao
| 21.07.1993
| 26
| 05.
| T.Subba Rao
| 06.08.1991
| 26
| 06.
| A.Radha Krishna
| 05.07.1989
| 30
| 07.
| Kapa Srinivas Rao
| 12.07.1993
| 26
| 08.
| Y.Srinivasa Rao
| 10.07.1992
| 27
| 09.
| V.Appa Rao
| 22.07.1993
| 26
| 10.
| Dr.H.Raja Sekhar
| 09.07.1993
| 26
| 11.
| K.Ajai Kumar
| 01.08.1993
| 26
| 12.
| A.V. Buchi Abai
| 06.08.1993
| 28
| 13.
| K.Sanyasi Rao
| 02.08.1993
| 26
| 14.
| K.Murali Mohan Krishna
| 24.08.1993
| 26
| 15.
| A.Rajeswaramma
| 01.09.1990
| 29
| 16.
| A.D.S.S.N.Murthy
| 01.08.1990
| 29
|
[ii] The writ petitioners are engaged for total working hours in their respective colleges and their services were utilised continuously throughout the academic year for imparting education/training to the students and they are paid for full month. They worked as invigilators, internal examiners and they were sent to other colleges as external examiners and department officers. Accordingly, they are entrusted with duties on par with the regular lectures and treated as regular lectures for all purposes except payment of salary. There are 1248 regular posts in vocational courses in the State, out of them regularisation was effected in respect of 55 posts, who have completed 5 years of service by 25.11.1993 and the cut of date in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994.
[iii] G.O.Ms.No.352 Education [IE.1] Department, dated 01.10.1994 was issued directing the 4th respondent to take action immediately for payment of salary calculated at minimum pay scale and minimum time scale is being paid from the date of the G.O.. Relevant part of the G.O., vide para 4 reads as follows:-
“As the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning (Pin) Department dated 22.04.1994 is liberal and as it reflects the intention of government for regularization of existing personnel, who are working on daily wage/NMR etc., which was also upheld by the Supreme Court of India, Government through the G.O.166, education department dated 08.06.1994 extended similar facilities to the part time lecturers and ordered that the part time lecturers who have been working in regular vacancies or where work justified appointment of regular lecturer for more than 3 years by 30.04.1991 or teaching over 16 period per week shall be paid the salary calculated on the minimum scale of pay of Rs.1810-3230/- (revised pay scales, 1986 and Rs.3640-7580/- (revised pay scales, 1993) for lecturers and Rs.1550-3050/- (revised pay scales, 1986) and Rs.3110-6380/- (revised pay scales, 1993 for junior lecturers plus all usual allowances instead of payment of salary on hourly basis w.e.f. the commencement of academic year 1992-93.”
[iv] However, the respondent authorities did not pay other usual allowances despite repeated representations submitted by the petitioners, including the one dated 10.01.2020 through A.P. State of Vocational Junior Lectures Association.
[v] The 1st respondent- State also directed the 4th respondent for submission of proposals of regularisation of part time lecturers in vocational Junior Lecturers working in Government Degree/Junior Colleges, but the respondent authorities did not take any steps for regular recruitment.
[vi] The 2nd respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.142 (HR.I-Plg. & Policy) Department, dated 27.08.2018 extending the minimum time scale in the revised pay scale of 2015 to the full time/NMR/daily wages/consolidated pay/part time employees, who were appointed before the cut of date i.e., on 25.11.1993 as stipulated in under G.O.No.212. However, the 2nd respondent also issued G.O.Ms.No.26 (HR.I-Plg. & Policy) Department, dated 19.02.2019 extending certain benefit like funeral charges, casual leaves, sanction of ex-gratio, maternity leave, enhancement of age of superannuation 58-60 years, to the full time/NMR/daily wages/consolidated pay/part time employees, who are appointed before the date i.e., 25.11.1993 as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212.
[vii] However, the respondent authorities paid annual grade increments and HRA to similarly situated employees, who are working in various departments from the date of payment of minimum time scale, but the same is not extended to the petitioners, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory.
[viii] Similarly situated employees as that of petitioners, who worked in M.A. and UD Department filed O.A.No.7335 of 2010 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal [APAT], Hyderabad for release of annual grade increments and HRA, the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. on 27.10.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the government of Andhra Pradesh filed W.P. No.24130 of 2011 and Batch before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same was dismissed.
[ix] Aggrieved by the same, the Government of A.P. filed SLP No.29963 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed the SLP. Thereafter, the Government of A.P. released annual grade increments and HRA and also arrears of pay to the similarly situated employees for implementing the orders of the APAT in O.A.No.7335 of 2010 vide G.O.Rt.No.405 MA and UD (D1) Department, dated 30.03.2012. The other similarly situated employees working in PR&RD department filed O.A.No.5281 of 2012, which was allowed by the APAT and the same was questioned in W.P.No.14116 of 2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. and the High Court allowed the same, directing the respondents to implement the orders; the same was again carried SLP No.31271 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the SLP was dismissed on 10.12.02018 thereafter, government of A.P. released annual grade increments.
[x] O.A.No.7976 of 2010 and batch filed by similarly situated employees working in MA & UD Department on the file of APAT, Hyderabad was allowed, against which W.P.No.12498 of 2015 and batch filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same is dismissed on 29.02.2015. Challenging the same, the State preferred SLP No.18264 of 2019 before the Supreme Court and the same is dismissed vide order dated 02.07.2019. Therefore, the petitioners being similarly situated are entitled for the relief prayed for.
Contentions of the respondents in counter affidavit:-
8. [i] The 4th respondent filed counter stating that the principals of Degree/Junior Colleges were accorded permission to utilize the services of persons as part time Junior Lecturers engaging classes in the colleges on part time hourly basis at Rs.20/- per hour vide G.O.Ms.No.1645 dated 20.08.1982, Sri K.V. Ravi Sankar and 15 other part time junior lecturers, who are working in vocational courses on minimum times scale in vocation courses were initially engaged in the year 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993. The part time junior lecturers in vocational courses, those who had fulfilled the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No. 212, Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994 and also orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.352 Education [IE.1] Department dated 01.10.1994, were regularized. The petitioners are in service as on 25.11.1993 which is a crucial date, but the petitioners in the writ petition were engaged as part time junior lecturers in vocational courses, have not fulfilled the said conditions stipulated terms of G.O.Ms. No.212 and G.O.Ms.No.352. Hence their services were not regularized.
[ii] As the scheme formulated by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994 is more liberal, the services of part time Lecturers/Junior Lecturers, those who are working against regular vacancies, having 16 hours of work in a week and put in 5 years of service by 25.11.1993, subject to possessing the qualifications prescribed for the post, be regularized as Junior Lecturers with effect from the date of issue of orders. Further, the Government in its Memo No. 552416/1E/A1/2020 dated 25.11.2020 accorded permission to Special Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur to continue the Part time staff, Type writing instructors, Lab Attenders, Type writing Mechanics and other staff working with Minimum Time Scale/Hourly Basis/Consolidated Pay in Vocational Stream in Government Junior Colleges in the State, for 12 months with a break of 10 days for the year 2020-21 from 01.04.2020 to 30.03.2021, subject to existing conditions the same was communicated vide Rc.No.Voc1/1/696/2015, dated 26.11.2020 to all District Vocational Education officers in the state and requested to take further action in the matter. The petitioners are presently drawing minimum Pay +DA. (vide para 11 of the affidavit filed by the 4th appellant-Krithika Shukla in I.A.No.2 of 205 in this appeal)
[iii] The petitioners working on Part time basis and taking the classes 04 periods per a day [i.e.] 45 minutes per class, totally five and half hours only, and they are continued with a break of 10 days for every year renewal by the Government and also increments and allowances sanctioned/released only Regular Employees only as per the provisions of FR. But the instant case, the petitioners are working on Part Time basis on MTS. Hence, they are not eligible for sanction of annual grade increments and H.R.A. and also there are no specific rules for sanction of increments and H.R.A. to the part time employees.
[iv] Further, it is stated that in the precedent cases mentioned by the petitioners in the similar situated cases, the Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (IE-1) Department and M. A.& U.D. Department has issued orders to implement the Impugned order of the Hon'ble Courts as a special case and to submit the compliance report to the Hon'ble Courts. This may not become a precedent to other similarly situated cases. This orders issued with the concurrence of Finance Department. The Government made it clear that, the extension of increment to the NMRs and Daily wage employees working in Panchayat Raj Department and M.A. & U.D. Department only, it should not be treated as precedent. The Part Time Junior Lecturers are working in our department and NMR and daily wage employees working in their Departments are not one and the same. If the case of the petitioners considered it will became further precedent for others to follow and it leads to unending legal complications.
Findings of Learned Single Judge:-
9. Learned Single Judge of this Court under the impugned orders dated 29.10.2024, after considering the G.O.Ms.No.352 and other allegations vide O.A.No.7335 of 2010, W.P.No.24130 of 211 and Batch, SLP. (Civil)No.29963 to 29965 of 2011 dated 14.11.2011, directed the respondents in the writ petition to release annual grade increments and HRA from the date of payment of minimum time scale extended as per G.O.Ms.No.352 Education (IE-1) Department, dated 01.10.1994 along with arrears. Questioning the same, present appeal is filed.
Arguments in the present Appeal:-
For the appellants:-
10. (i) Learned Government Pleader for Services –II appearing for the appellants submitted that FR-22 deals with the increments to the Government Employees covered by CCA Rules. Whereas the services rendered in temporary capacity without fulfilling the statutory criteria to open market cannot be the basis for computing the increments. The Writ Petitioners were engaged on temporary basis without following due process of recruitment like employment notification, proper selection, procedure through APPSC etc.. Therefore, ordering Annual Grade increments on par with the regular employees is not correct. The increments are granted under the impugned order on assumptions.
(ii) Reliance made in respect of other cases are on facts based in different contexts. Therefore, the same cannot be the criteria.
(iii) In order to ensure prompt withdrawal of the increments, the Drawing Officer has to verify the service book of all the eligible employees, for whom the increments are due in each month of succeeding year and if the persons are eligible, then only the increments will be proposed and released. In respect of temporarily engaged part time staff, when no such service books are maintained, the compliance of required procedure is not possible.
For the respondents:-
11. (i) The issue is squarely covered by the judgments of the Co- ordinate Division Bench of this Court in some other cases, and confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
(ii) In respect of similarly situated employees of the same category, or different categories, i.e., the employees engaged on part time basis, the benefit of annual grade increments, HRAs are granted and the directions are implemented. Therefore, taking the objection in respect of the writ petitioners is not acceptable as the same is discriminatory, which is properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.
13. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are,
(1) Whether the directions in the impugned orders to release annual grade increments, HRA etc., in respect of the writ petitioners are sustainable or require any interference? If so, to what extent?
(2) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:-
14. There is no dispute about the writ petitioners working as Junior lecturers on pat time basis. The core objection the respondent authorities raising is that there are no specific rules for sanction of Annual Grade increment and HRA to the part time employees. As per the contention of the respondents in their counter affidavit, the writ petitioners were engaged as part time junior lecturers in vocational courses. Reliance is placed on G.O.Ms.Nos.212 and 352. Further there is no dispute about the extension of benefit of Annual Grade increments etc. to the similarly situated cases in respect of Panjayat Raj and Rural Development Department and MA &UD Departments in terms of Orders of the Hon’ble High Court. The excuse the appellant submits is that as a special case to report compliance to the Court, the benefit was given to the similarly situated persons.
15. [i] In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi((2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 407) (3) Others, the Constitutional Bench of three, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of regularisation and equal pay for equal work vide paragraphs 44 and 55 of the judgment and observed that the daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade concerned without any allowances. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:-
“44. The concept of “equal pay for equal work” is different from the concept of conferring permanency on those who have been appointed on ad hoc basis, temporary basis, or based on no process of selection as envisaged by the rules. This Court has in various decisions applied the principle of equal pay for equal work and has laid down the parameters for the application of that principle. The decisions are rested on the concept of equality enshrined in our Constitution in the light of the directive principles in that behalf. But the acceptance of that principle cannot lead to a position where the court could direct that appointments made without following the due procedure established by law, be deemed permanent or issue directions to treat them as permanent. Doing so, would be negation of the principle of equality of opportunity. The power to make an order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before this Court, would not normally be used for giving the go-by to the procedure established by law in the matter of public employment. Take the situation arising in the cases before us from the State of Karnataka. Therein, after Dharwad decision [(1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 274 : (1990) 12 ATC 902 : (1990) 1 SCR 544] the Government had issued repeated directions and mandatory orders that no temporary or ad hoc employment or engagement be given. Some of the authorities and departments had ignored those directions or defied those directions and had continued to give employment, specifically interdicted by the orders issued by the executive. Some of the appointing officers have even been punished for their defiance. It would not be just or proper to pass an order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution or in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution permitting those persons engaged, to be absorbed or to be made permanent, based on their appointments or engagements. Complete justice would be justice according to law and though it would be open to this Court to mould the relief, this Court would not grant a relief which would amount to perpetuating an illegality.
…..
“55. In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily-wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily-wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that the courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularisation. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularization or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in CAs Nos. 3595-612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.”
[ii] The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh(2017(1) SCC 148) laid down the law that the principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable to temporary employees as well. It is apt to reproduce paras 44, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 61 as under:
“44. We shall first outline the conclusions drawn in cases where a claim for pay parity, raised at the hands of the concerned temporary employees, was accepted by this Court, by applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, with reference to regular employees:-
(i) In the Dhirendra Chamoli case (1986 (1) SCC 637), this Court examined a claim for pay parity raised by temporary employees, for wages equal to those being disbursed to regular employees. The prayer was accepted. The action of not paying the same wage, despite the work being the same, was considered as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held, that the action amounted to exploitation – in a welfare state committed to a socialist pattern of society.
(ii) In the Surinder Singh (1986 1 SCC 639) this Court held, that the right of equal wages claimed by temporary employees emerged, inter alia, from Article 39 of the Constitution. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was again applied, where the subject employee had been appointed on temporary basis, and the reference employee was borne on the permanent establishment. The temporary employee was held entitled to wages drawn by an employee on the regular establishment. In this judgment, this Court also took note of the fact, that the above proposition was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in the D.S. Nakara case2.
(iii) In the Bhagwan Dass case (1987 4 SCC 634) this Court recorded, that in a claim for equal wages, the duration for which an employee would remain (- or had remained) engaged, would not make any difference. So also, the manner of selection and appointment would make no difference. And therefore, whether the selection was made on the basis of open competition or was limited to a cluster of villages, was considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle is concerned. And likewise, whether the appointment was for a fixed limited duration (six months, or one year), or for an unlimited duration, was also considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is concerned. It was held, that the claim for equal wages would be sustainable, where an employee is required to discharge similar duties and responsibilities as regular employees, and the concerned employee possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post. In the above case, this Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the Government, that the plea of equal wages by the employees in question, was not sustainable because the concerned employees were engaged in a temporary scheme, and against posts which were sanctioned on a year to year basis.
(iv) In the Daily Rated Casual Labour (1988 2 SCC 122) this Court held, that under principle flowing from Article 38(2) of the Constitution, Government could not deny a temporary employee, at least the minimum wage being paid to an employee in the corresponding regular cadre, alongwith dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance, as well as, all the other benefits which were being extended to casual workers. It was also held, that the classification of workers (as unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled), doing the same work, into different categories, for payment of wages at different rates, was not tenable. It was also held, that such an act of an employer, would amount to exploitation. And further that, the same would be arbitrary and discriminatory, and therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(v) In State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh (1998 9 SCC 595) this Court held, that daily-wagers were entitled to be placed in the minimum of the pay- scale of regular employees, working against the same post. The above direction was issued after accepting, that the concerned employees, were doing the same work as regular incumbents holding the same post, by applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’.
(vi) In the Secretary, State of Karnataka case (2006 4 SCC 1), a Constitution Bench of this Court, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and directed that daily-wagers be paid salary equal to the lowest grade of salary and allowances being paid to regular employees. Importantly, in this case, this Court made a very important distinction between pay parity and regularization. It was held that the concept of equality would not be applicable to issues of absorption/regularization. But, the concept was held as applicable, and was indeed applied, to the issue of pay parity – if the work component was the same. The judgment rendered by the High Court, was modified by this Court, and the concerned daily-wage employees were directed to be paid wages, equal to the salary at the lowest grade of the concerned cadre.
(vii) In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006 9 SCC 321) , a three- Judge bench of this Court held, that the decisions rendered by this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case10, and Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy , laid down the correct law. Thereupon, this Court declared, that if the concerned daily-wage employees could establish, that they were performing equal work of equal quality, and all other relevant factors were fulfilled, a direction by a Court to pay such employees equal wages (from the date of filing the writ petition), would be justified.
(viii) In State of U.P. v. Putti Lal (1996 11 SCC 77) , based on decisions in several cases (wherein the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ had been invoked), it was held, that a daily-wager discharging similar duties, as those engaged on regular basis, would be entitled to draw his wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (drawn by his counterpart, appointed on regular basis), but would not be entitled to any other allowances or increments.
(ix) In the Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation case (2003 6 SCC 123) this Court noticed, that the respondents were employed on contract basis, on a consolidated salary. But, because they were actually appointed to perform the work of the post of Assistant Engineer, this Court directed the employer to pay the respondents wages, in the minimum of the pay- scales ascribed for the post of Assistant Engineer.
.......
......
56. We shall now deal with the claim of temporary employees before this Court.
57. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of equal pay for equal work‟ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily- wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove.
The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again.
58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. 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. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, 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. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.
59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below:-
“Article 7 The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.” India is a signatory to the above covenant, having ratified the same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape from the above obligation, in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee – whether engaged on regular or temporary basis.
60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work‟, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay- scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post.
61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay- scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post.”
[iii] In Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray and Others((2017) 3 SCC 436 : 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1475), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the entitlement or otherwise for minimum pay scale attached to the posts and the interpretation of words and phrases “permanent” and “regular” employee, pay parity/pay scale and also distinction between ‘pay parity’ and ‘regularization’. In Paras15 to 17 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred the case of Jagjit Singh’s case and Uma Devi’s case as well as the Pay parity, which are as follows:-
“15. At this stage, reference is made to the aforesaid judgment in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] for the purpose that even if principle of “equal pay for equal work” is applicable and the pay in the regular pay scale is admissible to such employees, these employees would be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale and not the increments. This case is taken note of and discussed in Jagjit Singh in the following manner : (SCC pp. 199-201, para 36)
“36.State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , decided by a five-Judge Constitution Bench:
36.1. Needless to mention, that the main proposition canvassed in the instant judgment, pertained to regularisation of the government servants, based on the employees having rendered long years of service, as temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or on ad hoc basis. It is, however relevant to mention, that the Constitution Bench did examine the question of wages, which such employees were entitled to draw. In para 8 of the judgment, a reference was made to Civil Appeals Nos. 3595-612 of 1999, wherein, the respondent employees were temporarily engaged on daily wages in the Commercial Taxes Department. As they had rendered service for more than 10 years, they claimed permanent employment in the Department. They also claimed benefits as were extended to regular employees of their cadre, including wages (equal to their salary and allowances) with effect from the dates from which they were appointed. Even though the Administrative Tribunal had rejected their claim, by returning a finding, that they had not made out a case for payment of wages, equal to those engaged on regular basis, the High Court held that they were entitled to wages, equal to the salary of regular employees of their cadre, with effect from the date from which they were appointed. The direction issued by the High Court resulted in payment of higher wages retrospectively, for a period of 10 and more years. It would also be relevant to mention, that in passing the above direction, the High Court had relied on the decision rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees' Assn. v. State of Karnataka [Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees' Assn. v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 274] .
36.2. The Constitution Bench, having noticed the contentions of the rival parties, on the subject of wages payable to daily wagers, recorded its conclusions as under : [Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , SCC p. 43, para 55]
‘55.In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily-wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily-wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that the courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularisation. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularisation or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in CAs Nos. 3595-612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.’
36.3. We have extracted the aforesaid paragraph, so as not to make any inference on our own, but to project the determination rendered by the Constitution Bench, as was expressed by the Bench. We have no hesitation in concluding, that the Constitution Bench consciously distinguished the issue of pay parity, from the issue of absorption/regularisation in service. It was held that on the issue of pay parity, the High Court ought to have directed, that the daily-wage workers be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of their cadre. The Constitution Bench expressed the view that the concept of equality would not be applicable to the issue of absorption/regularisation in service. And conversely, on the subject of pay parity, it was unambiguously held, that daily-wage earners should be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade (without any allowances).”
16. Another significant reason for referring to the judgment of Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] is that the Court culled out the principles of “equal pay for equal work” from the earlier judgments on the subject and collated them at one place. Further, the Court also drew an important distinction between the grant of benefit of “equal pay for equal work” to temporary employees on the one hand and the status of regular employees on the other hand. Insofar as parameters of principles of “equal pay for equal work” deduced by the Court are concerned (para 42), our purpose of deduction stated in sub-para (vi) thereof is important, which is reproduced below : (SCC p. 207)
“42.6. For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected, on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay scale (see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty [Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty, (2003) 5 SCC 188 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 645] ).”
17. Insofar as distinction between pay parity and regularisation of service is concerned, referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], the Court made the following observations : (Jagjit Singh case [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] , SCC p. 216, para 49)
“49.1. We are of the considered view, that in para 44 extracted above, the Constitution Bench clearly distinguished the issues of pay parity, and regularisation in service. It was held, that on the issue of pay parity, the concept of “equality” would be applicable (as had indeed been applied by the Court, in various decisions), but the principle of “equality” could not be invoked for absorbing temporary employees in government service, or for making temporary employees regular/permanent. All the observations made in the above-extracted paragraphs, relate to the subject of regularisation/permanence, and not, to the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. As we have already noticed above, the Constitution Bench unambiguously held, that on the issue of pay parity, the High Court ought to have directed, that the daily-wage workers be paid wages equal to the salary, at the lowest grade of their cadre. This deficiency was made good, by making such a direction.”
[iv] In respect of daily wage employees in the State of U.P. and Others Vs. Putila(2006(9) SCC 337) vide para 5 it is observed that the daily wager is entitled to receive minimum pay-scale though he may not be entitled to any increment or other allowances that is admissible to his counterpart in the government. Para 5 of the observations are as follows:-
“5. In several cases this Court applying the principle of equal pay for equal work has held that a daily-wager, if he is discharging the similar duties as those in the regular employment of the Government, should at least be entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scale though he might not be entitled to any increment or any other allowance that is permissible to his counterpart in the Government. In our opinion that would be the correct position and we, therefore, direct that these daily-wagers would be entitled to draw at the minimum of the pay scale being received by their counterparts in the Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment so long as they continue as daily-wagers. The question of their regular absorption will obviously be dealt with in accordance with the statutory rules already referred to.”
18. In catena of decisions cited above, in Jagjith Singhs’ case vide para 44 issue with regard to equal pay for equal work, salary equal to lowest grade of salary being paid to regular employees was considered as the pay parity. There is clear mention that a daily wager discharging similar duties as those engaged on regular basis would be entitled to draw his wages at the minimum pay scale (drawn by counter- part, appointed on regular basis), but would not be entitled to any other allowances or increments. The situation of daily wage employees whether similar to the situation of temporary employees, requires consideration.
19. [i] In P. Khadar Basha, S/o. Masthan Khan and four others vs. State of A.P and others(2017 Supreme (AP) 357 : 2017 6 ALT 302), a Division Bench of this Court held that the pay scale of pay, in Rule 31 (a) of Rule 9 of A.P. Fundamental Rules means pay which, subject to any condition prescribed in those rules, rises by periodical increments from a minimum to maximum. The scale of pay has to change with the change of time by addition of periodical increments and once the minimum pay scale is extended to the temporary employees they are also entitled to addition of increments from time to time in the minimum pay scale, without being entitled to all other allowances to which regular employees are entitled.
[ii] We deem it proper to extract paragraphs 7 to 12 of P. Khadar Basha (cited 2 supra) as under:
“7. The learned senior counsel has also drawn our attention to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. S.Nageswara Rao and others, wherein this Court allowed a similar claim made by NMRs/temporary employees of certain municipalities. In this context, it is apt to extract the observations of the Division Bench below:-
“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 grade 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 Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The respondents are casual/NMR/temporary Class-IV employees, who do similar work and discharge similar functions as any regular Class-IV employees. The principle of equal pay for equal work would bar the State or its agents from denying annual grade increments and revised scale of pay to the respondents. We are, therefore, not impressed with the argument that the grant of annual grade increments or grant of revised pay scales to the respondents would contravene the provisions of the A.P. Act 2 of 1994.
8. In our view, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed by them based on the above-mentioned precedents. Even otherwise also, going by the definition of time scale of pay in Ruling-31(a) of Rule-9 of the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules, the petitioners are entitled to payment of increments. This Rule reads as under:
Time scale of pay means pay which subject to any condition prescribed in these rules, rises by periodical increments from a minimum to maximum. It indicates the class of pay hirtherto known as progressive.
9. The above-extracted definition of time scale of pay leaves us in no doubt that the scale of pay has to change with the change of times by addition of periodical increments. Otherwise the expression time scale would have no meaning at all.
10. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that as the petitioners have been extended the minimum time scale, they are entitled to addition of increments from time to time in the minimum time scale without being entitled to all other allowances which a regular employee is entitled.
11. The learned Government Pleader for Services (Andhra 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 minimum time scale to the petitioners, would cause huge burden on the exchequer.
12. 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 respondents shall revise the minimum time scale of pay of the petitioners by adding the annual grade increments as and when they fell due from time to time.”
20. It was a situation of where the regular scale of pay was already given and also granting annual grade increments to employees for some time and thereafter stopping revised increments in respect of some employees while paying in respect of some of the employees. Therefore, there was a situation of equality and withdrawal of increment already granted and it was not a case of granting increments for the first time. So the observations in Khadar Basha’s case are not applicable to the present case before this Court.
21. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. J. Ravi(2023 6 ALD 83 :2023 Supreme (AP) 680) a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court has considered the interpretation of minimum scale with respect to DA and HRA. In the said judgment, the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka (cited above) as to pay partity and Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Aswini Ray (cited above) and Jagjith Singh’s case (cited above) are all referred vide para 14 to 20 and in para 20 it is observed that -
“20. In view of the aforesaid, the 1st respondent was entitled to minimum of the pay scale which was attached to the post but without any increments or/and allowances.”
22. In the said judgment, in respect of the argument that for similarly situated individuals, where the minimum pay scale for DA and HRA were granted, the co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court observed that once the case is presented and order is challenged by the State that has to be decided as per the law of the land.
23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bahadur Singh and Others Vs. Jaspreet Kaur Talwar and Others(2022 SCC OnLine SC 1077) has considered the expression ‘Pay’ and “minimum of the pay” as to include Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance also vide para-4 judgment.
24. It is clear from the affidavit of the 4th appellant that the minimum pay and DA being paid in respect of the writ petitioners. It is also clear that minimum pay attached to a particular category will have periodical revision but minimum pay alone will be paid on application of revised pay scale. On pay revision, the pay scale revised at minimum will be the time scale applicable and said minimum pay scale attached to a particular category will be paid. Fixation of Time Scale and DA will be done time to time by the State by adopting certain scientific methods. Pay would include DA for several legal purposes like Income Tax and exemption from attachment in terms of Section 60 of CPC etc.,. Allowances and increments are different and they have their own basis, in terms of position, place and the service an individual puts in. Minimum Time Scale refers to the starting rate of scale of Pay. The DA will be paid basing on the Pay. In the present case, there is no serious dispute about payment of DA. As per the affidavit of 4th appellant, minimum pay and DA are being paid to the writ petitioners.
25. Granting of annual grade increments, HRA etc., will make the temporary/daily wage employees as good as the regular employees. As rightly contended that fundamental rules and periodical reviews etc., are there for granting of Annual Grade Increments by the appointing authority in respect of regular employees after periodical check on conduct by the controlling authority. Without there being any such check or maintenance of the record etc., in respect of the employees, who were granted the minimum scale, if all the benefits and perks on par with the regular employees are given, ignoring the rules applicable to the regular employees who have undergone all checks that will result in negative equality. There can be equality among the equals. When work being done is same the pay can be same. But with regard to perks and allowances are concerned, since they are attached to the posts by virtue of specific rules and regulations under which process an employee undergoes, extending the similar benefit to another employee whose entry is different and who is aware that his employment is ad hoc/temporary or etc., will amount to treating unequals alike.
26. In the absence of any rules, and when the process of recruitment is not similar, the concept of equality and the argument that there shall be equality in every respect merely on the basis of similarity of work being done does not merit positive consideration.
27. In view of the authoritative pronouncement referred above, and also to maintain the judicial comity, we are of the considered view that the orders of the learned Single Judge to the extent of granting Annual Grade increments and HRA from the date of minimum scale extended is liable to be set aside. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:-
28. In view of the above discussion, in the result, appeal is partly allowed, as follows:
The relief of periodical increments and HRA granted under the impugned orders dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.2351 of 2020 is set aside while recording the statement of respondent-State that minimum time scale and DA are being paid to the writ petitioners.
29. Before parting we find it proper to make the following general observations as to good practices from every employer particularly State, expecting positive response from all the Government Departments:-
(1) Steps shall be taken for regular employment in advance every year taking note of the retirements of the current year/next year and increase of work load if any.
(2) If the administrative emergency demands, the engagement of temporary/ad hoc/outsourcing employment can be in respect of regular posts for limited period. But, engaging the services on such basis shall be preceded by sanctioning of regular posts in time frame.
30. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
|
| |
