The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. D.Raju

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) These three writ petitions by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and the Deputy Commissioner, Uppal Kalan Circle, GHMC, are filed against three separate orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The point involved being the same, this common order shall dispose of all the three writ petitions. Be it noted, W.P.No.21501 of 2011 is filed against the order of the Tribunal dated 29.04.2011 in O.A.No.2964 of 2011, and W.P.Nos.22454 and 22455 of 2011 are filed against the common order dated 20.06.2011 in O.A.Nos.5004 and 4958 of 2011 respectively. It would be suffice to notice the factual

background in W.P.No.22454 of 2011 because in the other two writ petitions, there is similar factual matrix. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were appointed in 1989 in the erstwhile Uppal Kalan Municipality as Bill Collectors and driver respectively on daily wages. They were paid minimum pay scales from 1996 and 1997. The periodical annual increments were released in 1998. Subsequently, Uppal Kalan Municipality along with other surrounding Municipalities merged into Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in 2007. They allege that respondents released revised scales of pay in 1999 and 2005, but 2010 they were not extended. Therefore, they filed O.A.No.5004 of 2011 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal praying for a direction to the respondents therein to release the pay scale of 2010, to pay all the arrears and also continue to pay the same. In their Original Application they placed reliance on the earlier decision of the Tribunal in O.A.No.7915 of 2002 dated 26.08.2002, which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27214 of 2005 dated 23.08.2006.

By order dated 20.06.2011 the learned Tribunal disposed of the said Original Application in terms of the orders in O.A.No.2964 of 2011, dated 29.04.2009 which in turn followed the orders in O.A.No.7915 of 2002. In the other two writ petitions similar claims were made and they were allowed by the learned Tribunal following the earlier orders referred to hereinabove. Therefore, it is necessary to briefly refer to these orders. O.A.No.7915 of 2002 was filed by twelve public health maistries in Bhongir Municipality for a direction to release periodical increments from 12.12.1998 from which date they were given minimum time scale. They also prayed for extension of revised pay scales 1999. All of them had worked for more than 10 to 16 years as NMRs and they were admitted to minimum time scale of pay from December, 1998. The learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A. on 26.8.2002 following the decision of the Supreme Court in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees’ Assn. v State of Karnataka[1]. Being aggrieved, Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality assailed the order of the Tribunal in W.P.No.27214 of 2005.

A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 23.8.2006 observing that there being no relief sought for regularization of service to apply the principles laid down in State of Karnataka v Umadevi (3)[2] and the only relief sought for is in regard to payment of arrears, no interference is called for with the order of the Tribunal. The Commissioner, Bhongir Municipal then approached the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.6422 of 2007. The SLP was dismissed on 23.11.2009. We may also notice that the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.7915 of 2002 was followed while disposing of the other O.As filed by the employees working in Municipalities, Municipal Corporations etc. The Standing Counsel for GHMC submits that the decision of the Tribunal in O.A.No.7915 of 2002 has no application. Alternatively, he would submit that when the respondents are appointed as daily wage workers/NMR employees and they cannot be granted the minimum annual grade increments or can be admitted to the revised scales of pay.

We are, however, not inclined to accept any of the submissions. Our attention is invited to paragraph 20 of Dharwad Assn. As rightly pointed out, the Supreme Court only summed up the salient features of the Scheme furnished by the State for the purpose of regularization of daily rated employees Government establishment. But in paragraph 23, the Supreme Court inter alia issued certain directions. Therein direction (1) reads,

The casual/daily rated employees appointed on or before July 1, 1984 shall be treated as monthly rated establishment employees at the fixed pay of Rs 780 per month without any allowances with effect from January 1, 1990. They would be entitled to an annual increment of Rs.15 till their services are regularised. On regularisation they shall be put in the minimum of the time scale of pay applicable to the lowest Group D cadre under the government but would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular government servants of the corresponding grade. ... ... Those belonging to the B or C Groups upon regularisation shall similarly be placed at the minimum of the time scale of pay applicable to their respective groups under government service, and shall be entitled to all other benefits available to regular government servants of these grades (underlining by us)

.

After referring to Randhir Singh v Union of India[3], Dhirendra Chamoli v State of U.P.[4], Surinder Singh v Engineer- in-Chief, C.P.W.D.[5], R.D.Gupta v Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn.[6], U.P. Income-tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association v Union of India[7], State of U.P. v J.P. Chaurasia[8] a n d Bhagwan Sahai Carpender v Union of India[9], their Lordships observed that the State is obliged to make casual employees the same payment as the regular employees are getting because the emphasis in the decisions of the Court is upon the feature that equal pay for equal work is a Constitutional goal to our socialist polity. The Supreme Court in direction (1) gave a clear direction to sanction annual grade increments to casual employees in the Government establishment. The Standing Counsel also relied on the decision of the Full Bench in P.Subramanyam Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh[10]. The question considered by the Full Bench therein was whether the precondition required under G.O. Ms. No.352, dated

01.10.1994 is necessarily to be fulfilled before a part-time lecturer can claim minimum time scale of pay. By the said order, the Government directed payment of salary calculated on minimum scale of pay to part-time Junior Lecturers working in Government Junior Colleges subject to fulfilling the conditions therein, namely, they should put in five years of service by

25.11.1993; they should have 16 hours of workload in a week; they should be working in a regular vacancy; and they should possess prescribed qualification for the post of Junior Lecturer (Vocational Course). The Full Bench was urged to extent the minimum scale of pay given to those part-time Junior Lecturers, who did not fulfil these conditions. Considering the issue with reference to Sections 3 and 7 of the A.P. Act 2 of 1994, the Court ruled that,

the benefit of minimum scale of pay to the petitioners without the petitioners fulfilling the requirements of the schemes issued in conformity with A.P. Act 2 of 1994 would defeat the mischief sought to be arrested by A.P. Act 2 of 1994

. We fail to understand as to how the ratio in P.Subramanyam Reddy would be of any help to the petitioners in these cases. It is nobody’s case that the respondents, who were initially appointed as NMR workers, did not complete required service before they were admitted to regular scale of pay. 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 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. These writ petitions are devoid of any merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________

(B.N.RAO NALLA, J)

05.09.2011 [1] (1990) 2 SCC 396 : AIR 1990 SC 883 [2] (2006) 4 SCC 1 : AIR 2006 SC 1806 [3] (1982) 1 SCC 618 : AIR 1982 SC 879 [4] (1986) 1 SCC 637 [5] (1986) 1 SCC 639 : AIR 1986 SC 584 [6] (1987) 4 SCC 505 : AIR 1987 SC 2086 [7] 1987 Supp. SCC 658 : AIR 1988 SC 517 [8] (1989) 1 SCC 121 : AIR 1989 SC 19 [9] (1989) 2 SCC 299 : AIR 1989 SC 1215 [10] 2010(1) ALD 616 : 2010 (1) ALT 686