High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt', Health, Medical ind Family WeTfare Deit., Secretariat Bld!l Secretariat. Hyderabad' Commissioner of AYUSH, State of Telangana. Behind Passport Office, Secunderabad

3. BRKR Govt, Ayurvedic College, Represerrted by its Principal Eragadda' Hyderabad, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constrtutron of lndta praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frle(j lherewrlh the Hrgh court may be pleased to grant appropriate relief more rn llr| {rirlrrre of writ o[ N,4andamus under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia. cler:i.r nrl [.,1,:nro No.288/E1/2015 HM and FW(El)Dept.,daled,lo.12.2015issuedbylll.j1Slr|]sl)ondentandconsequential Memo No.13186lAzt2OOg dated 18.01 20ltj issucci l)y llre 2nd respondent, whictl was communicated to the petitioner throuqh tlre 'ird respondent by Memo No.77glE/2016 dated 04.03.2016, as ;rrbrtrary rll€rgal. discraminatory afld unconstitutional, violating Articles 14. 10 and 21 ()f the constitution of lndia, apart from violating principles of natural iustrce an{l sct asrde lhe same and issue consequential difections, directing thc rcspondunts to forthwith release all monetary benefits to the petitioner t>y qrvrnq effect to the Proceedings No.1342IE/GACI2OO5- 1 dated March 2010 rssuc( j by the 3rd respondent in pursuance of Proceedings No. No.16748/Accts.1/2015 dated 16.11.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 'l51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Memo No.288/81/2015 HM and FW (El) )Dept,, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the lltl-respondent and consequential [\ilemo No.13186/A2i2009 dated 18.01.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent. which was communicated to the petitioner through the 3rd respondent by Memo No.77BlEI2016 dated 04.03.2016, with a direction to forthwith release all monetary benefits to the petitioner by giving effect to the Proceedings No.1342IE/GAC/2005-1 dated March 2010 issued by the 3rd respondent in pursuance of Proceedings No. No.16748/Accts.1/2015 dated 16.11.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.V.KRISHNAIAH I Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-II The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHU/AR RAO IITRIT PETITION No.15629 of 2022 ORDER: This writ petition is hled seeking the follolving rclief: "... to d-eclare Memo No.288/ El/ 2015 HM & FW (E1) Department, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the ls' respondent, and. ansequential Memo No. 13186,tA2/2OO9, dated 18.01.2O16 issued bA the 2"'t respotldent, Luhich was ammunicated. to tlE petitiotler tlu'ouc1lL the 3'd respondent bg Memo No.778/E/2016. rlot<,<l 01.0-3.2016 as arbitrary, illegol, disciminatory arrl t t, t()nst tlt itic)n.tl, uiolating Articles 74, 16 and 21 oJ tlrc ('or rstrtt tt ior t ol hulia. apant from violating pinciples of ttotur al /ir:'^tr(r' (rrd sel aside the sam,e and issue cort-sc.r/iit rrtirrl rltte'cft<-uis. directin4 the respondents to forr-hu,rttr ,'.'[t'rt.., rtil ,t)tl.t.!r:J benefits to ttte ptitioner bg giuing e[[t<1 t<t tltt' Pt tx't't'cluvls No.1342/ E/ GAC/ 2005-1, dated lv[:r' c]r. () i (, '\.sii('(i b! respondent in pltrslt(tt!\'i !'l i'tt\ ('?dnrl. the @ No.16748/Accts.1/ 2015, dated. 1(). I I .)()o; r';';t!, tl btt rlrc 2d respondenl.,..." '2. The brief facts of the case are as tr:il,rr s (i) The petitioner possessed .r l)ii)l()rIril trt L;ttr Technician, Medical Health, from CSI ll;rs1;it.ri. {l.it:r1:tlore irr the year l97l artd he was .r|)i)i,l!It( ci r,s rt l.irtr / /, /I j I I I 2 Technician on 04.O1.1983 under the jurisdiction of the 2na respondent. After attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30.O6.2004. In pursuance of the representations made by the Andhra pradesh Medical & Laboratory Technicians' Association on 01.09. 1984 as wel as Andhra Pradesh N.G.Os Association on 03.O2.19g4, the Gol,ernmcnr issued G.O.Ms.No.l43 M & H Dept. dated

26.0'.2.1()85 re vising the pay scales of Lab Technicians Grad" l. ancl ()r;rdc l[ notional with effect from 01.O4_ l97B u'itlr rnorretan benefits from the date of issuing of the rlrdl r s. {irt Ai rhe rime of issuing the aforesaid GO Ms No. I r.3 ,rncl 1;rior to the petitioner,s retirement, he r,r,as .qe'.r r rq , r Jr:rr sc:rle of 45O-700 i.e., scale of Laboraton 'l't.r'lrnrr:r.rrr. (irrrcl<, il and the sarne was revised to 500-gOO .rrrci r; r t: r\ .r)l lll(, lact that the said revised pay scales u,r:re ,)lr tht' revised pay scale recommendation l;;rst il r llcr i, ri ,'n)rrr,rlr.(1 rrith effect from O1.04,199g. Thereaftcr. tlrc -lrcl r'(.sl)ou(l(.nr issued proceedings dated l6.l 1.2O0:i i' ! f I I I i I i t 1 t 1 t I t I I : I I I t I / I ) lor refixation of the pay of the petitioner, srarrng folloq,s: '...-..-- the matter hns been examined it detailed uith referene to the orders issued uide this offrce proeedings ld cited, tfe rcquest of the indiuidual is anem.ed and. herebg ordered tllat Si A.Sutamy Das (Retd.) Lab TecLnician, Dr. BRKR Gout. AAuruedic College, Hgderobad, utho u,as appointed as Lab Teclnician and alloued the scale of pag Rs. 450-7OO be allowed in the reuised scale, of poy Rs.SOO-8OO in the RPS, 1978 from *Le dak oJ' issue of pag Rs.5OO-800 in tle R.P.S. 1978 front ttte, date of issue of tle Gouernment Orders i-e., u,itlt effect from 26-2-1985 on par Luith Lab TechrucLut Grade-ll u.torking in tle aunterpart department. The. Principal" DT.BRKR Goqernment Ayun,<l ! :r' ('ollege, Hgderabad, is therefore requested to ttllt rlLe pag of indiuidual and. draut and disburst' ti.L c<ttsequential difference of pag and allotu<rrr..,' t ht'reon to him. Si A. Suamg Das, Lab Technician (Rettl 1 r. trrlbnned that anA amount paid in excess to ltinr ri,rt lo rrtotTeous refrxation of hi.s pag in reuked. scuh r,; R.s..5OO'8OO in the Reubed Pag Scale, 1978 is lutl,i, lo bc recouered from his Wnsionary benefts at o,'rt ttttu, t7,7d u,ithout anA noti@ thereon u)heneuer stu l ,t , t rJt tlaitA comes notice-" l (iii) In pursuance of the aforesaid proceedings dated

16. 1 I.2005 issued by the 2"d respondent, the 3..r respondent issued proceedings in March 2010, appointing the petitioner, by allor.ving RPS- 1978 of Rs.50O-8OO with elfect flom 26.02.1985 and also revising the annual grade increments and b1' fi.xing in RPS 1986-1993 and 1999 and calculated the scaie of par. after adding the annual grade incremcnts o[ the revrscd pay scales, as stated above in G.().!1s.No.l-13, clated 26.02.1985. Even though the 3..1 rcsl)(.,ndrnt rssuccl ploceedings in March 2Ol0 as directed b_"'' thc .2,,,t respondcnr. the authorities have not given effect to tiu s.iid proceccrirr1:i i.;sr-led b-v the 3.d respondent. irr j Whilc s(;. r hc l.r respondent issued an im1':rrgr.,,cl iVlt,mo drtrr.ri 1O.12.2OL5 requesting the 2nd resi)( )it (l (. n t l () cxanr rn(. r,irtd issue revised orders, overmling thr' 1:,r,, r'r'cltttgs uf thc f ,: rcspondent (AdditiOnal Director),

1.1' ,,i i, ;,i d:rl...d I() I i. jUO:>. rvhich were issued by the 2nd resl)()ir(i, r)t irr p,-lrsLian(. of G.O.Ms. No.143, dated 26 i - ) ,.{J. ..1<.t:or,i.rrii til{' 2".r respondent issued a l Memo dated 28.01.2016, which was communicated to the petitioner by the l'a respondent by Memo No'778/E/2O16 dated 04.03.2016. (.,) Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to the 2nd respondent, requesting to implement the orders passed b,v the 3'd respondent in March 2O10' The 1"' respondent issued impugned Memo without following the principles of natural justice' Similarly, the earlier orders issued b.r tl-re 2'd respondent in 20O5 in compliance of orders in GO Ms No. 143 dated 26'02'1985 issued by the 1., i-cspondent and therefore rvithout cancelling C.O.Ms.No. i43, dated 26 'O2 '1985 or modifying and $'ithout tsst-tittg notice and opportunity to the petitioner' cithcr r<:sltonrient No l or respondent No'2 has no jurisdictton to issue the impugned orders' but thc ?rutlrorittt.sh:rrcnotconsideredtherepresentationmade ltv tlri' pt tiriotrer. cven though the petitioner has repeatedlv approa( lrt cl tht- authorities Hence' the present u rit petlt l()ll .'..-L I I t I t i I I I I i i i I I I I I I I I I I i I t I i t i I 6

3. Heard Sri p.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and the.learned Govslnrnsnl pleader for Services-It appearing for the respondents. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents have erroneously issued the rmp ugn ed memos without considering the provisions in G.O.Ms.No. I43, dated 26.02.1985 and, men troned therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the r.l.rit setting aside the impugned memos and allort. the q.rit petition petltron 5 G.O.Ms. No. 143, stating that I.earned Government pleader lilcd a counrer affidavit though the cond irion s laid dorr.n in M&H Departmenr, ciared 26.Cr2.19g5 are applicable to the Lab Techni<;ians rr orkirrg in the Direclorate of Medical Education f)epa:,tntent and not for AYUSH Department, claiming paritv i'ith Lab T.echnicians of DN,IE Depertment and requested i-or grant ol eqlral pa-,., scale of Rs.5O0_gOO, and thc Adclirronai Drrecror I 1 (Ayurveda), without verification, and on an erroneous interpretation of the applicability of GOMs'No' 143' issued proceeding dated i6.11'2OO5 allowing higher pay-scale of Rs.50O-80O in the Revised Pay Scales' 1978 from the date of issuance of Government Orders i'e'' 26'O2'1985' It is further stated that AYUSH (as IM&H 6. Department) and DME are two different departments' The Pa-r' Revision Commission has its own authority to assign pa-v scales. Similantl nomenclature of posts cannot form the basis for paritl of pay scale' Various factors' like <lrralt[ic:rtiorts' rlutits atrd responsibilities' scope' burden ;rncl pl:rcc ()[ dutv etc are kept in view in assigning parity' lt rs lirrtht'r stat('(l thtlt the Government requested to re- ('\.lrnin(' atr<l tsstlc revised orders overruling the prot r'<'ditrgs clatt'd l(r.I I-2OO5 issued by the Additional I)rr'( ct()! (Ar trr''.'t<l:rl Thereafter' the Commissioner' i)( i)irrtrrr(rrrl ol AYt-SH. issued a Memo dated 28'Ol '2016 t':rrrr cllrttg the proct't'<litrgs dated 16' 11'2005 issued by the \drlrtion:rl [)irct'tor (Ar trrt'ecia], and' therefore' the prayer of I n the petitioner for releasing of all monetary benefits in terms of the proceedings dated 16.l l.2OOS, q,hich stood cancelled subsequentl-y vide Memo dared 2g.0I.2O16, does not arise. Further, the challenge laid to the Govemment Memo dated IO.12,20 lS after a lapse of 6 years is rmpermissible on the grouncl of dela-r, and laches. Therefore, there are no merits in the,"vrrt petition and the same is liable to be dismisseci

7. Having considered tirc rival strbmissions made by learned counsel for the r_espcr:tive part,{,r l,rd perusing the rec-ord, it is to be note.l lhat. admrtterili. iirc Dctitioner is a Lab ?echnician in thc AyUSi{ [)t,p;1r1p1.;,111. lrrcl upon his request for a gran t of r:r111;,,,...,1 plr.r sr ;rlt,. clarmrng parit5z with corresponding p,rsr r,[ l_ab Tec.irrrrr irrn in DME, the Additional Director, r rrj.. F,r.rr.r,ed jn..r ri.rilrj l(r.l1,2OOS, granted enhanced pa1, sr.alc l{o$cit,r. tt ls to l)(,noted that it iS the specific ( . ( ) r I [ ( , Government that nomcni.irrIrrrc :riorrc ts ri(), ti)(.criteria for parity in pay scalcs :rr;rl rlrc p:ri Rt,i rsir,;r (.r:rnntission, | ] [ I ( ) | ) ol. tlrt. I r.r,spondent though it has its own authority in fixing the pay_scales, several other factors like qualifications, duties arrd responsibilities, etc., come into play when fixing the pay scale to a post in a particular Depa_rtment. It is the specific contention o[ the l"r respondent, based on the record, GOMs.No. 143, dated 26.O2.1985, was exclusively issued for the employecs of DME Department, and it is the specific stand of the Governmcnt rhat even the said GOMs.No.143, dated 26.O2.1985, tuas nor marked to AyUSH Department and, thcrr:[ore. the Acldrrlonal Drr.ector (Aurveda) issuing the proceeclings datcri 16. I L2O05 making it applicable to AYLISH D{iLr;rftment is mi:scoiiceived. In the said G.O., no'"r,here ir is menriorrcd rh:rr ril(, said G.O., is applicable to the emplo-r ce s o[ thc Ar ush [)c.p;rrtment a]so.

8. Wtrile rssuing tlrc pro<.t,t.clirrgs in 20O5, the Additional Director tlirl n()t rt.fcr rlt(, lile nor even check the applicabilirr ol (i.O.Ms.No. I.t.l ro rtre petitioner. The G.O. relied upon lrr rlrt. Atltlirionirl [)rrr.t.ror does not appear to be applicablc tr,.\YLjSll ;rs Irrrlr.rrr \llrli<.int: Dept., and DME are , i i I I I a r I I i I , ! i ! .: I l0 ( two different Departments. Therefore, the lsr respondent issued Memo dated lO.12.2Of S as follo,,1,s :- '..... While issuing proceedings itt 2O()5, tlrc Add.itional Director did not refer the file nor euen check the appliabilitg of G.O.Ms.No. 143 lo the indiuidual. fhe CA refied uporr by the Additiortal Director does not apryar to be applicable to AyIJSH as Indian Medicine Dept., and DME are tuto diJ.fere:nt Departnents,

2. Slle is furtfler infonned tlrc Gout.. tisru lrl implemented the paA scal€ bas!-s on t |.te [email protected] of Pay Rer.,rsiorr Ctotnrnrssrort .l-1rc Pag Reui,sion Commission ha-s ils orlrr jrrclgnt<,,rt trr assigning Pag Scales and is tlu nglt l<;t-ttrrr to <.t.< r,s relatiuities and pafiies amonq t)utlols catcgon/,s (ts obserued bg the Hon'ble Sulrentt. ('ittttl in t,(,t1t,r .. pronouneilents- Moreouer. :\a,t.' si il!Qn!11 trt .i r, nomenclafilre of posts cannot !)t JrQ.srs.r,crr (,(li.Qtk)n in pag smles. Apart from quel!f(,Qttons. (lutic. Qtt.l responsibilities, uaious ir.ctor- l,t,c ,.t tttx, ltri,;tt ,t and plaes of dulg etc.. hate rtlst. !x, A<,I,t rr ,tr ,1 t1 this regard. Tle Commissiotrer o/ ,\t1tr:;lt 'I .,i,trt,rritr t Hgderabad. is tlerefore reque:;tt.tl i1, rt.r\ttt,,tt)t .., I issue revi.sed orders ouenuluq !lre I n ot.t,t,t i tt rr 1s ,tl Additional Direaor of AWSII t,t tttt, ,4,lt,(,, ' : : i i I ) l^ i II

9. Furthermore, the Government of Telangana has examined the matter and issued proceedings dated 28.OL.2O16, cancelling the proceedings dated i6' 1 f '2OO5 of the Additional Director (AyT rrveda)' While issuing G.O.Ms.No.143, dated 26'02'79A5, the C'overnment has not given clarity s'ith regard to its applicability to the employees of the Medical and Health Depa-rtment' Moreover, the order dated 16 l12005 relates to the the proceedings refixation of pay of the petitioncr anrl in dated 16.1 1.2005, it was spccificalll' Additional Dire ctor (Alun'cdzrI stated bY the u'henever any ( ( recover the amounts irregularity cornes irlto t.totice' tvill wrongly credited. The Pctitiotrcr accepted the said proceedings withottr i\n\ l)rot('st' { thc ll-t:itililt cirsi' titt llrocecdings dated 10. In 16.11.2OO5 wett' t:tttctlltd irl iitt rtar 2OI6 itself' The present '4'rit petiti()lr ts filc'rl aflt'r :l l:rpse of nearly six years. Once the prot'cetlitrgs \\'cr(' c:rttc't'lled six years back' the writ petition (r:lnllot be clltt'rtirlllcd for restoration of t2 f the proceedings, dated 16.11.2005. Moreovei-, G.O.Ms.No.143, dated 26.O2-|9BS is not applicable to the Department, where the petitioner is employed. Hence, the question of releasing the monetary. benefits to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, there are no merirs irr the writ petition and tJle same is liable to be clisrnissed. i 1. Accordingly, the writ petition is drsmisscri. \-o orcicrr. as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, i[ ar-rr... shall starrcl closed. //TRUE COPY// To, 1 One CC to SRI P.V.KRISHNAIAH, Advocate [OP SD/-N. SRIHARI EPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 't 2 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High Court for tho State ot Tetangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 3 8SR GJP Two CD Copies (w HIGH COURT DATED:f 3 t13t2o2l ORDER trE _q ..t WP.No.15629 of 2022 O2 JuN M o) l+ I i,) '_/ ,q A.P t', DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WTHOUT COSTS ([[uL , ' ,o16l" I , i I I