lvl. Sania Goud' S/o M Saya Goud' aged about 46 v. The State of Telangana

H."'*p;;11iJ:,li;t*"t,?,Ti;i$E8,?t"i1l"-f il",ffir3r.:^ff ::1833 The State of Telanoana. F"p.. p.y the principal Secretary. Finance and Planning DepartmentlSecretaiibi, H'voli"ru,j""'"' "' T...RESPONDENTS Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circJmstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the rnterim order passed in r.A.No. 112022 in w.p.No. 16462t2022, dared 29'01 .2024 and to dismiss the w.p. No. 1646212022 as the same is devoid of merits and substance, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI SAPAVAT SREENTVAS, SC FOR CO.OP SOCIETY LTD The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No. L64620F 2022 ORDER: Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri Sapavat Sreenivas, learned Standing Counsel for SC Co-operative Society Limited appearang on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2 The o titioner aDDroached this Court seekino the Draver as und er: "...to issue an order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Man&mus, declaring that the action of the Respondent in not adding yearly increments and H.R.A to the petitioners minlmum time scale pay as the same is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the Respondents to grant yearly annual grade incremertts and H.R.A to the petitioner along with minimum time scale with effect from 2019 as per the orders passed in W.P.No.267BB of 2077 reported in 2Ol7 (6) ALD 638 and to pass..." I l 2 SN,J W.P.No.16462 of 2022

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner was appointed as an NMR (Attendant/Driver) in 1992 with the 4th respondent society. Despite G.O.Ms.No.193 (1990) and G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.12.1994, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the regularization of NMR services, the petitioner's case was not considered by the respondents. On 27.07.2010, the 1't respondent granted the minimum time scale to two similarly placed candidates but excluded the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14396 of 2016 seeking the minimum time scale. On

26.10.2021. th resoondents oranted the min rmum time scale atta ched to the oost of Office Sub ord inate. with elioibilitv for annua I increments but without othe service benefits to the oetitroner.

4. It is the further the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner, vide detailed representations dated 15.lt.2O2O and O7.17.2021,, requested the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to grant the yearly increments due to the petitioner. However, despite the said represe n tatio ns, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 had not considered the petitioner,s request for the grant of yearly increments and House Rent { 7 SN,J W.P.No.15452 of 2022 Allowance (HRA) as on date. Inspite of several requests of the petitioner, the petitioner's request for grant of minimum time scale pay w.e.f.2019 had not been considered as on date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 5 PERU ED THE REC ORD: (A). The Aoex Court in a iudoment reo rted in 20L7 r me co s 148 of Pun and others vs Iaoiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-Daras (1) 2)(3), of the said iudoment observed as under: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversY had.concluded, that temporary emptoyees were not entitbd, b the minimum of the regular pay-scale, 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 daity wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equatity of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement' 4 sN,j W.P.No.16462 of 2022 (2) But if ilv wa ad hoc or contra ual r n a a, t etr ervt n nta li bv the s for s a con tinuouslv, with notional break, t u e I dailv waoers. adhoc or contra ctu.al apo ointees r a tn, scale without orv of oe such lon ed i, s Their claim for d rt h sc of ere DCe.s f n ti. u n , n DE e. (j) 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 contractuat employee sha'tj be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months." (B) The rel eva nt Dortion of the Ju do men t t t7 d o.o urt t as s W-P .No.2 788 of 2O17 in "P. adar Basha nd ot ers Vs. the State of A.P. reported in 2O1 7 (6) ALD 638 is extra cted hereu nder: "In oui view, the petitioners are entifled to the relief claimed by them based on the above_ mentioned precedents. qoan qbvt e definition of "time s in Rulino- 1(a) of le of av" the An hra Rule-9of h wrs I / 7/ 5 SN,J W.P-No.16462 of 2022 da menta Pra esh F n are entitled o Dav ent Rule reads as under: m Rule s. the Detitio ers of increments, This "Time scale of Dav" m eans Dav w ich escribed ln t ese a axtmum. It indic tes the class sub ect to anv co d ition mtnl um to ofD v hithert known a s Droqre tve. rises bvDeriodical increments fro r o The above -extra cted defi n ition of "time scale of oav" leaves us n no doubt that chanoe of times by addition oF periodical increments. Otherwise the expression "time scale" would have no meaning at all. he li cha n of th hat a ove d ime sc n h rs ha n are entitled to ddition of increments 'from the mini um time scale time to time i without beino entitled to all other allowances which a reqular emolovee is entitled. h The learned Government Pleader for Services (An(hra 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 6 SN,J W.P.No.16462 of 2022 'l minimum time scale to the petitioners, would cause huge burden on the exchequer. 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 resoondents shall revise the mrntmu m time scale of oav of the oe itioners bv addinq the annual qrade increments as and when thev fell due from time to time." (c). The Division Bench of this Court in the iudoment of "Gover nment of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. S.Naoe ara Rao and others" reDo rted in (2012) 2 ALD 26 observed as under: "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 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 7 SN,] W.P.No.16462 of 2022 Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal' The casua I /NMR /temDo rarv res ondents are Class-I V emolovees, who do si milar work and imilar fu e r s -IV em olove s. The Drinciol eofe ual Cla oav for eoual work would bar the state or its aqe ts from denvi no annu I orade increm ents and revi sed scale of oav to the resoondents. We are, therefo re not im oressed with the r tnc ments or qra nt of revised oa v scalesto contravene the resDondents would h tt f vtslon sof e A.P. Act 2 of L994." (D) The definiti nof 1 (a) of Rule9of Ruli n(I Fundamental Rules reads as under: t me sca le of oav" in Andhra Prad esh "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 hitherto known as progressive." DI cussION A DCO CLUSI ON: Learned counsel 6 oetitioner submits that when the relief of minimum a DDea rino on beh !f of r t \ I 8 SN,J W.P.No.16462 of 2022 r1 e deni ncrem nts petitioner's reDres entations date d 15.11.2020 and 07.1L.202L needs to be nece ssa ri lv considered bv the respondents.

7. This Court opines that the scale of pay has to change with the change of time by addition of periodical increments; otherwise, the expression "time scale,, would have no meaning at all.

8. This Court opines that the representations of the petitioner need to be considered in light of the definition of "time scale of pay," as well as the view. expressed by the Apex Court in its Judgment reported in 2Ot7 (1) SCC page 148 in "State Judgment of of Punjab v. Jagjith Singh andr others,,, The the Division Bench of this Court dated

10.08.2017 passed in W.p. No. 26788 of 2Ot7 reported in 2Ol7 (6) ALD page 638 and the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (2012) 2 ALD 26, (referred to and extracted above).

9. Taki nq into considera tion: *,. 9 SN,.J W.P.No.15462 of 2022 a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of the respondent No'1 and Sri Sapavat Sreenivas, learned Standing Counsel for SC Co-operative Society Limited appearing on behalf of the resPondent Nos.2 to 4, c) The Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2OL7 (1) SCC Page 148 in State of Punjab v' Jagjith Singh and others (referred to and extracted above)' d) The judgment of this Court dated 1q'O8'2O17 passed in W.P.No.26788 of 2OL7 in P'Kadar Basha and others v. State of A.P., reported in 2OL7 (6) ALD 638 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Judgment in "Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs' S'Nageswara Rao and Others" reported in (2OL2) 2 ALD 26 (referred to and extracted above), 10 SN,J M/.P. No.16462 of 2022 1 f) The fact that the petitaoner is being paid the minimum time scale with effect from 26.1O.2021, and that the petitioner had submitted representations to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 15.11.2O2O and 07.LL.2O2l requesting the grant of yearly increments as per the petitioner's legal entiilements, admittedly having not been considered as on date, 9) Ruling 31 (a) of Rule 9 of A.p. Fundamentat Rules, The writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner, as put forth vide petitioner,s representations dated 15.11.2O2O and r 07.11.2021 addressed to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, seeking grant of Annual Grade Increments as per petitioner,s tegal entitlement duly taking into consideration the J m t u r Pa qe 148 in Stat eofP unt n e 1 8 01 n2 l7 1 -Iaqii h Sin qh c d P No. 748 I 20L7 b of thi Court reported in 2O17 (6) ALD oaoe 63g (referred to B n ED vi o l 11 5N,J W.P.No.16462 of 2022 and extracted above), as well as the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Gov rnment of Andhra Prade h and s oando hers. re orted in (2072) 2 ALD Naq swara 26 (referred to and extracted above), in accordance to taw and pass appropriate orders on petitioner's representataon dated 15.11.2O2O and 7'LL'ZO2L seeking grant of yearly increments to the petitioner as per Rule - 31 (a) of Rule 9 of A.P. Fundamental Rules, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision on th9 petitioner's representations to the petitioner herein' However, there shall be no order as to costs. r Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/ ASSISTA .M. NAGAMANI NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI FFICER and Prannins Department' secretariat' ll:":r1:?:3LP""s[Tsihrlinance To,t , . I:i,SaH'l?a',J'5?"*",1;,If"?fl:1','J:,fr3:i?o!;-ooerative u'"ru::l*fsJ::J$,,-'#i.:fru)r3r,.,1i-?i}Il3lo.o".ti,-1.1'" Caste Services societv Limited' Services' co-operative

4. rhe Executive..Directo,to:,i:y:*"8:l%111fi","u"' society limited' Nizamar

5. One CC to SRI G RAVI MOHAN' Advocate IOPUCI 7 6 7 B I BSR PVL \ to sRl SAPAVAT SREENTVAS, sc FoR co.op soctEry LrD f&"r3f One CC to SRt T.V.RAMESH, SC FOR CO.Op SOC|ETy LTD [OPUC] Iy;€:;-:,Eir5gg5,l&ffiE & Two CD Copies Hish court ror the state or 'LANNTNG, w, t --- - '-- - -<ra--rt {.-. .'. :. 'r- -.i'_*qi,r* HIGH COURT DATED: 14t07t2025 \ ORDER WP.No.16462 ot 2022 i' iE. SI,4r,! .<: r.) :-) :.'t1'" 'i I irtP ?$?5 I .i '-l' ' l , I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ?,\ 1 q 1D