The High Court · 2025

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circun{stances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased toissueanorderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWritof Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the Minimum Time bcales attached to their respective posts in PRC Scales of 2015, with all usual allowances of DA, HRA and CCA for extracting work with responsibilities on par with regular employees of their cadre by not applying principle of equal pay for equal workasperJudgmentHonbleSupremeCourtinthecaseofStateofPunjaband others Vs Jagiit Singh and others reported in 2017 SCC (1 ) 148 to prevent exploitative enslavement, helpless condition, poverty' prevailing unemployment and .,-i # .i I b;-:rt :_ i / I t I { I I t i i .t : It a t I {I I :: 1 1ii otherdisabilitiesofpetitionersinpayingconsolidatedpaybyr'spondentswhichis' lessthanquarterSalaryofregularlastgradeemployeebyviolltlngtheirrighttolife aSunconstitutional,againstprinciplesofnaturaliustice,totall/arbitrary,uniustand unfair,andpraystodirecttherespondentshereinbeingM:lelemployerofour welfare government to pay Minimum Time Scale attached tc he respective posts held by the petitioners herein' with all usual allowances 'n par with regular employees of their cadre of last grade from the date of their iril al appointment to till date from time to time with arrears by applying principle lair ly Honble Supreme court in the case of state of Punjab and others vs. Jagiit Singt and others reported in 2017 SCC (1) 148, to pay equal pay for equal work, and : so award exorbitant costs in driving the petitioners to the court to apply the same' I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circurr ;tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be rleased to direct the posts of respondents herein to pay tvtinimum Time Scale attached to th 'respective Last grade held by the petitioners herein in 1oth PRCS Scales r f 2015 with all usual allowances of DA, HRA and ccA on par with their regular ( )unter parts of Last grade'forthwith with effect from June 2O14lo till date by applli g principle, of equal pay fdr equal work as per the judgment of Honble Supreme )ourt in the case of State bf Punjab & others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others reported i 2017 SCC (1) 148, and continue to pay same from time to time. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR MEDICAL Ht ALTH FW Couniel for the Respondent No.3: SR! M.P.K.ADITYA, SC F( R WP i i Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR FINANCE & PL/\ INING : The Court made the following: ORDER .1i, : .6 :! , s 5 !tI .i i* :l ,. 1 s 5: ,: 1 THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION 0.5625 0F 2019 ORDER: Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri M.P.K.Aditya, learned Standing Counsel for Vaidya Vidhana Parishad appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3. 2 The oetitio ers aooroached the Court seekinq oraver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the Minimum Time Scales attached to their respective posts in PRC Scales of 2015 with all usual allowances of DA IIRA and CCA for extractinq work with responsibilities on par with regular employees of their cadre by not applying principle of equal pay for equal work as per Judgment Honble Supreme Court in the case of state of Punjab and others Vs lagjit Singh and others reported in 2017 SCC 1 148 to prevent exploitative enslavement helpless condition poverty prevailing unemployment and other disabilities of petitioners in paying consolidated pay by respondents which is Iess than quarter salary of regular last grade employee by violating their right to life as u nconstitutional against principles of natural justice totally arbitrary unjust and unfair and prays to direct the respondents herein being Model employer of our welfare government to pay f4inimum Time Scale >=.. i I 2 SN.J ,\'.P.N0.6625 of 2019 attached to the respective posts held by the ,etitioners herein with all usual allowances on par !\ i h regular employees of their cadre of last grade from t re date of their initial appointment to till date from ti|r e to time with arrears by applying principle laid t 7 Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of ['r njab and others Vs lagjit Singh and others reported ir 2C17 SCC 1 148 to pay equal pay for equal work and z so award exorbitant costs in driving the petitioners to tl3 court to apply the same and pass...."

3. The case of the oetitioners, in briel, as oer the averments made in the affadavit filt d bv the oetitioners in suooo f o the Dresent Wr I Petition is as under:- i) The petitioners have been working 3; Sweepers, Attenders, and Night Watchmen in Governr rent schools under the Panchayat Raj Department since 198( s. ii) Though initially appointed as part-time v orkers, they have continuously rendered Full-time duties 'or over 30 years, as certiFied by school authorities anc Government Com m ittees. ii) Similarly placed employees in other listricts are already receiving full wages, but the petitionerl; lre still paid 3 SN.J llv.P.N0.6625 of 2019 only Rs.4000/- per month, violating the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) This Court oassed interi m orders on 28.03.2O19 in I.A.No.1 of 2O19 in the Dresent writ oetition in favour of the Detitaoner nd the same is extracted hereunder: "Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. lagjit Singh, the respondents are directed to pay the petitioners, the minimum time scale attached to the respective posts of last grade on par with their regular counter parts of last grade."

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners brings on record G.O.Ms.No.10, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, dated 04.01.2020, and contends that, in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court dated

28.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.6625 of 2019 (referred to and extracted above), the said G.O. was \?tt- rs-=-'*#.- 4 SN.J r.P.No.6625 of2019 issued by the Government of Telangana. He ftr ther submits that a bare perusal of G.O.Ms.No.10 date,i 04.O1.2020 indicates that the Government accorded perrl ssion to the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural :mployment, Hyderabad, to pay wages/consolidated r3muneration equivalent to the minimum of the time scale all ached to the last grade (common service), i.e., Rs.13,000/' per month, to the petitioners, subject to the condition tlr t they shall attend to all full-time duties such as those t f Sweepers, Office Subordinates, Sweeper-cum-Nig ht Watch nen, etc., in the schools. as directed by the concern€( controlling officers. However. though the said G.O.Ms. lo'10 dated 04.01.2020 was issued in favour of the petit ( ners, it has not been implemented even as on August 20,1 , Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the relief as pra y rd for in the present writ petition, and the writ petition reeds to be allowed accordingly.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on tehalf of the respondent No.3, on the other hand, subl its that in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court 18.03.2019, 5 SN,J W.P.N-0.6625 of 2019 verification of the eligibility criteria of the petitioners, as per the applicable rules, was directed to be undertaken and further, the genuineness of the certificates issued by the concerned Headmasters to each individual was also directed to be verified and additionally, an action taken report was called for from the concerned Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and the Zilla Praja Parishads, and the same is a wa ited . DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

6. A bare oerusal of the record indicates that under similar circumstanc es W.P. No.18550 of 2O14 had been filed and the same was allowed vide orders dated 23.12.2O16 observino as under: "7. Thus as seen from the Circular, the contract employees are entitled to'equal pay for equal work' on par with regular employees, who are on rolls as on 28.6.2012. In the present case, the petitioners joined in service on 2.4.2005 on contract basis arter undergoing regular proper process oF selection and worked as such till 31.5.2006. Therefore, from 28.6.20L2, the petitioners are entitled to claim 'equal pay for equal work' in pursuance of the proceedings dated 20.1.2013. For the later period, the services of petitioners were engaged on out 6 SN.J ' P.No-6625 ofl0lS sourcing basis and the services of out lourcing employees are not covered by the said pr,) teedings dated 20.01.2013. Therefore, the resrr, rndents are directed to Dav salarv to th e oeti ! oner in terms of oroceedinos dated 21.1.2013,' 7 Aoorie ved bv the same. the resoon ( ent herein filed W.A.No.736 ot 2O 16 and the sa me Wer: smissed vide orders dated O6.12.2O16 observinq as_ rnder: "11. Though it is contended that the decisi: I of the Board of Directors would apply only to :ontract employees and not to persons engaged .hrough outsourcing Agencies, we do not agree for he very same reasons stated above. Even recen ly, the Supreme Court has held in State of pun ab and others Vs. lagjit Singh and others (Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013, dated 26.10.2016) that tf 3 grant of equal pay for equal work has a cons: :utional foundation, and that though Article 39(d) is only in Part IV of the Constitution, the same (:, r.lld be enforced, in view of the application of Ar: I es 14 and 16. Therefore. we find no ororl rds to interfere with th e order of the learned _ rudqe. Hence , the Writ AoDeal is dismissed."

8. The Aoex Court in a iudoment reporteg 20L7 1 SCC 148, in State of Puniab and othel! vs Jaoiit Sinoh and others at Paras 54 and its (1)t )(3). of the said iudo ment observed ar - tub-oaras I u nder: F 1 SN.J lV.P.No.6625 of 2019 "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scalet merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. la r rrrant or its ins atmaa'aliliac (2) But if dailv waqers. ad hoc or contractual nted aoainst reoular aDoointees are not aD sts and their services are ava ed sanctioned continuouslv, with notional breaks, bv the C;rfa C.\varn for 7O vears. such sufficient lono oeriod .e. dailv waoers. ad hoc or contractua I a DDointees shall be entitled to minimum of the reoular oav assumption that work of perennial nature is available and havino worked for such lono period of time. an eouitable riaht is created in ns- Their claim for such cateoorv of oe ma v eanrtlaitaliaa ,?. considered seoaratelv in terms of leoallv Dermrssible scheme. allovtan ces w ith^rrt at v (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months. " 8 SN.,I W.P.\o.6625 of20t9

9. This Court applying the principle o ..Equal pay for Equal Work,, to the facts of the g resent case opines that the respondents are boun(l to pay the petitioners minimum of the pay scaie )f regularly engaged Government employees holdirr, I the same corresponding posts in view of the obser!,: tions of the Apex Court an "State of punjab and oth(: s Vs. Jagjit Singh and others,, (refer to and extracted i bove). 1O. Learned Government pleader, aFrl rearing on behalf of the respondents, does not dispr te the fact that W.P. No.185SO of 2O14 was allowed lt I this Court on 23.12.2(,16, and that Writ Appea! No.7,, i6 of 2O16, filed against the order dated 2g.L2.2O16 in W.p. No.18550 of 2OL4, was dismissed by thisr Court vide its order dated O6.12.2016.

11. T kino into con saderatron:- The aforesaid facts and circumstarl:es of the a) case.

7. 9 SN,J W.P.No.6625 of 2019 b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Standing Counset appearing on behatf of the respondent No.3, c) The interim orders of this Court dated 28.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in the present writ petition(referred to and extracted above), d) The observations of the Apex Court at paragraph No.54 and its sub-paras (r)(2)(3) in the judgment reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, in State of punjab and others vs Jagjit Singh and others, (referred to and extracted above), e) The Order of this Court dated 23.12.201-6 passed in W.P. No.18550 of 2Ot4 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Order of this Court dated 06.12.2O16 passed in W.A.No.736 of 2016 (referred to and extracted above), t0 s\_.1 $ I'.N0.6625 of 2019 The writ Detitaon is disoo ed of dir ectinq the resD ondents to forthwith implement G,r ).Ms.No.10 dated 04.o1.2020. issued bv the Gov, Telanq na, and com v the direction s ol' this Co urt 'nment of D dated 28.O3. 2019 Dassed in I.A. No.O1 of ::r )1 No.6625 of 201f. in its true soirit, dulv :akin consideratio n the obse rvataons of the Ar ,x Co rt ln in W.P i nto .! the iudqment referred to and extracted ab a 've a nd the ;ed in W.A. Division Bench order dated O6.12.2O 16 oar t No.736 of 2016, hich uoheld the o der dated

26.O3.2 O19 in I.A. No.O1 of 2O19 in W.P. _ No.6625 of 2O19 (referred to and extra ed abovr within oeriod of three (03) weeks from th e date g f receipt of a coDv of this ord er. However there shall le no order as to costs. Asa any, pendinq sequel, the miscel in the Writ Petition shal I //TRUE COPY// la neous rdrle + SD/. )etitions, if a r r closed .H. S , GOWRI SHANKAR--,- SIS TANT REG-TSiIRAR To, 1 2 .The Principle Secretary to Government, I Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderab , The Director of Medical Education, Govern ,Telangana State. SECTION OFFICER ical rnd FamilY Welfare tate o -felangana a ment of 1t langana' HYderabad,

3. :The Commissioner, VaidYa 4. iThe Principle Secretary to Government Finance and )lanning Depa(ment' Vidhana Parishad, ( ovt. of Telangana, rHyderabad 1Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana' t l t:lill It l I I,1 .{ it;'i e -l ;.,r{ fjEB.:{ 'i t i .; ] ;:l i4r tl, i* * Jil .',3 _'d, .a r*.. E$ ,*$, ;SI ?4 i'. E r$ ,t'3 5 6 7 8 One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI M.P.K.ADITYA, SC FOR WP [OPUC] TwoCCstoGPFORMED|CALHEALTHFW,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] TwoCCstoGPFoRFINANCE&PLANNING,HighCourtfortheStateof i Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] I g. iTwo CD Copies BSR GJP w l i i i I i I i I i t- I L I i I I I l J HIGH COURT DATED: 1910812025 1 i -l i t , l , i t t CC TODAY i l 1 ORDER I 2 wPrNo.6625 0t 2019 r\ {HE: r:.) t ir'.i' r: (J l{ -.t(q. \I*.:\ 1i APt t6 3' .:r -{ -.1 -"' .O.514] 1, , . <', f,-rl'u ,Lv'l:,:, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, +wt HOUT COSTS \e ."CerL leil. 'i; l:t ; I.lr t: $ li .-f-EF'-