The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR FINANCE & pLA NNING Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: Gp FOR MUNICIPA_ ADMTNISTRATION & URBAN DEVELCI'MENT Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI RAMESH CHILLA, S;(:: FOR SHADNAGAR MUNICIP T LITY The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'B E MRS. JUSTICE SURE PALLI NANDA WRIT PETITIO N No.15210 OF 2021 DATE: O1.12.2O25 Between: Sri S. Srinivas & 13 others And The State of Telangana & 4 Others ORDER: Petitioners Respondents Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned Standing Counse! for Shadnagar Municipality, Badangpet, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking oraver as under: "...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the 2 SN, J a. I62l0_2021 lvlinimum regular time scale in the Last Grade ; )ruice to the petitloners under the principles of :quai pay,Equal work as per the Judqment of the - cnble Suprerne Court reported tn 2077(1) SCC 148 ir the state of Punjab and others Verses lagjitsingl and others as illegal, arbitrary and Un-constitutione anci consequently direct the respondents to p. \ the N4inimum regular time scale in the Last Grade ;:rvice to the petitioners under the principles of Equ,t pay, Equal work as per the ludgment of the I cnble Supreme Court reported in 2017(1) SCC 148 ir the state of Punjab and others Verses Jagjit singh ,v th all incidental and consequential benetits duly takifr, into consideration the length of servrce put .\ petitioners and to pass... ".

3. The ease of the petitioners, in brief, a per the ave!'ments made in the affidavit filed bv the petitioners in suDDort of the oresent Writ tI r:tition is as under:- The petitioners were appointed as Bill Co ectors in various Gram Panchayats through a valid selecti:1 process and the petitioners appointments were apprl rved and salaries were paid to the petitioners based on reg r ar annual permission being given by the District Collector, r onfirming their continuous service. The petitioners' ap l:)intments were subsequently ratified by the District Collector, Panchayat Raj Wing, and the petitioners continu 3:J to work in sanctioned posts in their respective Gram )rnchayats without any interruption. Later ofl, sevt: al Gram .,) SN, J \{p,16210 2021 Panchayats were merged to form Badangpet Nagar Panchayat in 2013, and the petitioners services were taken over by Badangpet Municipality, where the petitioners continued performing the same duties as regular Bill Collectors. Despite working continuously and discharging identical functions, petitioners were not granted with the minimum time scale of pay. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court ludgment, in Sfate of Punjab & Others vs. Jagjit Singh, reported an 2OL7 (1) SCC 148, wherein it is categorically held that employees working on daily wage / NMR basis are entitled to minimum time scale of pay on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work", the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD (A) The Relevant Dortion of the interim order 20, 2.2023 assed b t s Court in W of 2O2L, is extracted hereunder: *6. Admit. Post after ten (10) weeks for hearing. This matter is coming from 19.07.2O21 for filing of counter by the respondents. The Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents took time on several occasions for filing counter, but till today no 4 SN, J p r6::0 2021 counter is filed. Today also none appeared f)' the respondent No.5. ln view of the same, there shall be : r.erir direction to the respondents to pay Minimum re gular time scale attached to the post of similar to whrc I the petitioners are rendering thelr services as per tr ) law declared in the State of Punjab Vs. Jagit Singl and others reported in (2017 SCC (1) 148), within eir;lrt (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this ord r ."

5. The learned counsel appearing on behzrli' of the petitioners mainly contends that the subject iss;r e in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the oi < er oi' this Court dated 23.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.6650 oi' ,2018 and also by the order of this Court dated 15.11.2022 )assed in W.P.No.26584 of 2019.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on ber,rlf of the respondents places reliance on the averments m e le in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent ,jo.5 and mainly contends that the petitioners are not e:l gible for payment of minimum time scale since the petiti( )ners are neither regular employees nor working against the sanctioned posts in Badangpet Municipal Corpora:ion. It is further contended that the petitioners are only er titled for ) ) ) SN', J rvp 16210 2021 wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as per the Government orders vide G.O.Ms No 60, dated 11 06'2021 and accordingly, the petitioners are being paid Rs'15,600/- per month as on date, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the grant of relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition. 7 Th ADex Court ina t dome nt reDorted in (2O L7) 1suDreme Co rt Cases 148. ln State of Pun iab nd Jaqiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and its oth ersvs su - Da ras ( 1)(2 )(3), of the said iudqment obse ed as u nder: "54 "The Full Bench of the Hiqh Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary eimployees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular i,ui-ttarc, merely for the reason, that the activities carried 'on' by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar' The futl bench however, made two exceptions' Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were heid entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the futl bench of the High Court in the impugned iudgment are extracted hereunder:' "(1) A daity wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regutai sanZtioned posts, if appointed after undergoinq a selecion process based upon fairness and equality of. opportuni[y b alt other etigible candidates, shall be entitled to' minimum of the regular pay scate from the date of engagement. (2) But if dailvwa ers. ad hoc tv, a o n I a s r Sta T 6 SN. I \!F I ()l l0 2021 .Government or its instrumentalities for ..!)t sufficient lono oeriod i.e. for lO vears. such daitv wac ers. aa noc or contractual apooin tees shall be entitled to mi mum of the reoular pav scale without anv allow,l lces on the assumption that wotk of perennial nature_ ts availa ble and havino worked for s ch lono Deriod _lf time. an eou ita ble riqht is create tn su of De rsons. a ,_ have to be _t.enlEslble considered separatelv in terms of leoallv scheme, r clai (3) In the event, a claim is made for minim t n pay scale after more than three years and two months t,.completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wagt r, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arreat s for a period of three years and two months.,,

8. Hon'ble High Court for the State of Te lanqana in Judgment dated 07.08.2020 passed in I.A.No. of 2019 in W.P.No.47675 of 2018 in G. Srinivasa Chary l's Stafe of Telangana, observed as u nder:

79. "In the result. (a) The Writ Petition is allowed: (b) the respondents' action in engaging the pet tioners on "outsourcing basis" as Sanitary Supervisorj (SFA), Sanitation Workers, Entomology Field \!,1r1asr5, Entomology Superior Field Workers, Supervisors (EFA), Superior Field t hrough in termed ia ries/agencies/contractors is contrary .to law, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constilt tion of India and also the law declared by the Suprentr: Court in Uma Devi (1 supra) mandating periodic -egular recruitment to sanctioned posts: Assistants (c) that the "outsourcing system adopted by the GHMC is only a sham and a ruse to avoid extendin(t to the petitioners their genuine service entitlements; ,1 td that the presence of such intermediary/contractor htt to be ignored, and the petitioners are held to havl been directly engaged by the GHMC and they are all o held 7 SN, J \\'p_ r 62r 0 2021 entitled to be considered for regularisation of their services: existence of (d) consequently, the respondents, while continuously engaging the services of the petitioners directly nencefortfr, are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services, by ignorlng intermed ia ries/ag en cies/contracto rs in the posts of Sanitary Supervisor (SFA), Sanitatlon Workers, Entomology Field Workers, Entomology Superior Field Workers, Supervisors (EFA), Superior Field Assistants within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. (e) the petitioners are entitled to minimum of time scale of pay attached to the posts of Sanitary Supervisor (SFA), Sanitation Workers. Entomology Field Workers, Entomology Superior Field Workers' Supervisors (EFA), Superior Field Assistants in which they are now discharging their functions till their claim for regularisation is considered by the GHMC in accordince with para 53 of the decision in Uma Devl ( 1 supra); and such payments shall be made by the GHt"1C directiy to the petitioners w.e.f the date of filing of this Writ petition (after deducting the payments already received by them during this period from the contractor/interm ed ia ry ) and shall be continued till the cases of the petitioners are considered for regularisation by the GHMC. The arrears upto 31.7.2020 shall be paid on or before L5.9.2O2O. (c) I.A.No.1 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs. 9 The D ivision Bench of is Court dealino with an identical situati n in W.P.N os.5556, 2018 observed in the said iudqment in Da rticu la r. at 85 and 89 68 of qraoh Nos.9 to 1 2,asu der: 9. "It is pertinent to note that in identical circumstances in W.P.No.26788 of 2017, wherein the persons, who were working in Kavali Municipality, sought minimum time T 8 SN..I \\,P I6210 2021 scale of pay, this Court vide order dated 10.g.21t.7 held that the petitioners therein are entitled for c lant of minimum trme sca,le of pay and in addition to Ii,t, tney are also entitled for grant of increments frorr ..ime to time in the time scale of pay. But however, this r:lLtrt ;, tne above Writ petition restricted the arrears or v from the date ol fiting of the O.A. by the petitioners if Jrein. 10. Apart from that, the Hon,ble Supreme : r)urt in State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh an,l :ihers, considered the principle of equa[-pay f6r eq,r,,i work and held that the persons who aie'dischargir 3 their duties on par with regular employees are entit-ir,r l'to the minimum scale of pay under the principle of e 1.ral pay for equal work.

11. In the- light of the judgments referred to sLr;rra and in view of the fact that the services of the pct tioners have been continued since two decades, *"'ur'i tn" view that the petitioners are entiued to minim _r n time scale of pay under the principle of equal pay f:. equal work, even though they were engaged by a :rivate contracior. Therefore, the orders passed by .lre A.p. Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in O.A.trio.j1373 of 2014, dared 70.8.2017 and o.A.No.2369 0f 2o:. dared 6.7 .2017 , are set aside. -o1

12. Accordingly, the Writ petitions are allowe:J. The respondents are directed to grant minimum tirt ) scale of pay to the petitioners and also to add annur grade increments as and when they fell due from t rie to time. However, the petitioners are entiUed tc 3ll the arrears from the date of filing of the O.As bei rrs 16s Tribunal. No costs. ConsequenUy, misce Itneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.,, 1O. Learned Standing Counsel placing relian :e on the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, does tot dispute the fact that the petitioners are working in the .espondent No.5-Municipal Corporation, but however the only plea taken for opposing the grant of reliefs as sought for by the J 9 SN. J wp I(,210 2021 petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that the petitioners are not regular employees working against sanctioned posts in the Badangpet Municipal Corporation.

11. This Court opines that the said pleas are not tenable in view of the observations of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the judgments referred to and extracted above. L2. Takinq into c n sideration: - a) The aforesaid facts and carcumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned Standing Counse! for Shadnagar Municipality, Badangpet, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, c) The interim order dated 2O.O2.2O23 passed in W.P.No.1621O of 2O21(referred to and extracted above), d) The observations of the Apex Court and this Court in the various judgments(referred to and extracted above), l0 SN, J \rp r6lt0 2021 The Writ Petition is accordinotv a!!owg d in ter ms of the inte ri m order Dassed bv this Cr) tJ 20,o2.2023 directinq resDonde nts to dulv t,ry!![cnt_ef r onsl er er ue of e mtntm um requl r time scale ttac ed o dulv taki nq into con sideration the Iaw decli A ofP n a Vs a rt in th c ! reir posts t'ed bv the it iiino h and o ers I ncr e o ed in sofE al o17 SC 1 48 un ert E w rk Irlrtatrns to co sid rati th ob the ! irdo ments referr dt an extr e b v an simI,!emented ec of ila rl e 1s like the etitio ers i w .No 19132 an 205 4 o' zOLg and n W.P.N .66 na te orders ot2 8 law w ln f l'our (04) d d r r com un he ( rtitioners. Ho ever, there shall beno order as to ostr; _ ::h is order SN, J \^?_ 1621 0 202 r Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' g- SECTION OFFICER To, "nO Region Hyderabad. Deoartment. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

1. The Principal Secretary, The State of Telangana' Finance and Planning z in5 pii".ipur-secreia ry, Tn'e State of Telangana, Municipal Administration - Urorn Developmeht Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad' f ih" Conln ssionei and Direbtor of fi,4unicipal Administration, Hyderabad i. rri" n"gi"^ai O'rector, trrlunicipal Administration Department, Hyderabad s fnd Commissioner, The Badangpet Ir/unicipal Corporation, Badangpet' o one"Cc to shl ARVIND KUMAR KATA, Advocate {oPUCl i O;; CC i" SNI NANIESU CHILLA, SC fOT SHADNAGAR MUNICIPALITY IOPUC] s iwo-Cts to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADI\"llN|STRAT|ON & URBAN " orVEr-bprrltrNr, uign Court for the State of Telang{a [gUJ] g iwo CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING, High Court for the state ot Ranoa Reddv District. Telangana. [OUT]

10. Two CD CoPies BN BS CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:01 11212025 ^; . .^a "'/'. u) .). C) lr- -.g\ ^* \" d> \ + o ,{ ,9c/H + 6'ry' ORDER WP.No.16210 of 2021 I I I I , I i ,. I . : i I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS { DI: \\/