High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated' in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to direct the responder ts tc rectif pay on par wrrh h s ,r",1-t1".b:t't passing such cther orourolt''.' in'the interest cr justice pav anomalv b ut.,i'' otol, uyduly steppipg up of his basic or orders as tr'is Hon'ol :fftH; ]:;T::j:L:l sff ::l I;l,T: [:::;,ffi :;:S,Js l.".sflf f t rhec.u.made,he",," j:::::::*T$ffiri.:xi,:$,ilrs^ rH, R u MA LA R A o FIEDD] -+j7 : l a THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK W'RIT PETITIONN o.303 49 0F

20.23 ORD ER: This Writ Petition' under Article 226 lndia, is frled seeking the following reliel of the Constitution of " ..to issue a wnt, order ", l,f,,riii,Tili,,li!#,:"ll;ii,l^n'1,'!i, naturp ol Writ o[ Mondornus ": ?':y 2:i.,;LL ir. t.tns,CR/25s0. dot"d aside the proceedtngs uid.e Rel.No.,t rir/ t 'i*l,,hiis"iir' ,","" as iltegat, 2s.12.20t7 issued ba th. *:1",":;;';,.t ,)rtinrty to ,rep up his bisit- arbitrory, uoid and contrary t".'i:,i:r;., ,u',n o,ti", ordcr or orders os oau toith effect from ]'a l9(]5 ano Io ptas:u",''.". ,::;-:.:, ^r ns]icc Lulh inisHon.bteCourlfialldc"rnl,tondp,op",i'tlPinlerPslofJl|sllfc lgoo i..lerest and PxPntplory.oct "

2. Heard Sri K'Thirumala Rao' learned counsel for the petitioner andSriP'Sridhar,learnedcounselrepresentingsriP.sriHarsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries' for the respondents. Perused the material on record' Learned counsel lbr the petitioner submits that the petitioner 3. was initially appointed as Fitter Trainee in Category-I on 23'O7'1989 in respondents-Company and the petitioner's junior-D Venkat Reddy was initially appointed as Fitter Trainee in Category-I on 26'08' 1990' However, D.Venkat Reddy is drawing more salary than the petitioner submits that the Petitioner was Learned counsel further subsequentlY Promoted as Fitter Helper in Category II, Fitter rn I k vtr \ 2 PK, J .Yp 30349 2023 posts \r,.e. -. Categorj.-lV. F tter in Category_V and Fitter in Technical g; Supervisor Grade'D', w.e. l. 23. 1O. 1990, 03. 1O. 199 1, 0 1.03. 1995 and O1.04.2O00 respectivel 7, "r'hereas D.Venkat Reddy was promoLed io the said i]o.O8.7997, 26.O8.7gg2, 01.09.1995 ard O1.09.2000 respectivr:I... Irrrther, the petitioner and D.Venkat Reddv rvere placed in Monthll.Grrde-C w.e.f. 01.O9.2007 and they were promoted under SLP schem: to thc next higher grade i.e., Technical ancJ Supervisor Grade-B (S -p) rv.c.f. O7.O7.2O76. The petitioner is getti:.rg less basic pay than D ve,<at Reddy and he is rosing huge amounts. tn fact. the anomaly ar ose w.e.L 0t .Cr9.1995 in in the petitioner,s basic pay from the date on which Category V i. e., D.Venkat Reddy was promoted, frrrthr:r D.venkat Reddy was benefited with two ircrements in the same year i.e.. annual increment w.e.f. 01.O3.1995 in the cadre of Fitter Cat:gor.i.-IV and promoliona_l increment w.e.1. 0l 09.1995 in the categorr. cf Fitter Category-V. However, the petitioner was promoted tr Orrtegory_V w.e.f. 01.03.1995 and benefi ted with promotion in:rearent only. Hence, D.Venkat Reddy is getting higher basic pay rh ar-r the petitioner resulting in the basic pa1, arromaly. Therefore, tl Le petitioner has submitted several repre.st:ntations including thc ref resentation, dated 06.i_I.2O7Z to the rcs Dondent_ authorities I equ,:sting to rectify the said alomaly r.rnd the I I l 1 3 PK, J wp-30349 2023 representation, dated 06'lI'2017 was considered and rejected by the respondents uide impugned proceedings' dated 25 12'2017 without assigning any valid reasons' The basic pay anomaly had arisen on 01.09.1995 on account of two increments (i'e'' annual and promotional) being given to D Venkat Reddy' whereas only one promotional increment was given to the petitioner' Therefore' the basic pay anomaly on the principles of equal pay for equal work needs to be rectihed' Hence' learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the impugned proceedings' daled 25'12'2017 and direct the respondents to step up the petitioner's basic pay w'e f' 01'O9'1995 on par with D'Venkat Reddy' In support of his contentions' learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'bie Supreme Court in M'R'GuPta v' union ol India and othersl ' 4. Per contra' learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed in respondent-company on 23.07.lgag and was subsequentiy promoted/upgraded to various categories/ grades as per the cadre scheme and presently working as Fitter in Technical and Supervrsor Grade-A (SLP) at Coal Handling Piant, oCP- 1, RG-III Area The grievance of the Petitioner was 1 199s (5) SCC 628 4 PK, J vb 30349-2023 examined rry ttre competent authority and found that flr(,re \\rere no specihc gurdcl nes for rectification of basic pay anomalies arising in the wages of catlv rated National Coal Wage Agrecme,n ts (NCWA) rrorroted to higher daily rated categories and the same proceeditrgs, dated petitioner ujde impugned was infor;n:d to the employees;

25.72.2077 I;_ is further submitted that as respondent date for all No - -Compaly, l"t March per the Rules of is the common rn cremental rated employees and those, who have put in more than six n tnths service as on lst Mar-ch, will bc allowed one l'ur:rrer. the petitioner got promoted to thc postrs or Fitter lncrement lajl1 Helper, Cat,tgor-".-lI 03.10.199i I ottL of' which are less tharr six months of seryice as of 01.03.1991 rncl Ot .O3.7gg2 respectively. Thereby, the pctitioner,s

23.70.7990 and Fitter Category-IV basic pay is lt ss tran that of D.Venkat Reddy,s basic pa1,.

4.L. It is firr:her submitted that the variation in basic rvagcs, r,r,hich occurred d,ring the revision of basic pay at the tir.e of the implementation of NCWA-vr wages, has continued till date. Since the variation occ:u rrerl when the petitioner was drawing the salaty of the daily rated categ()rv, there are no specific guidelines for re(tt fication of basic pay rmortalies arising in the wages of daily rated NCWA employees prcmot:d to higher daily rated categories. Usu:Llly, the W ,^l 5 PK' J WP,30349-2023 In such basic pay anomalies occur when a daily rated category employee 1s promoted to monthly rated category The variation in basic pay occurs at the time of promotion and the variation that occurs 1s corrected by the concerned authorities by enhancing the basic pay to be on Par with that of other emPloYees However, in this case' the variation occurred. when the petitioner was drawing the salary of the daily rated category and implementation of NCWA-VI wages' cases, there are no specific guidelines of the JBCCI correction/ stepping up of basic pay on pa'r with his co-employee' 4.2. ltis further submitted that the variation in the basic pay of the as to that of D'Venkat Reddy occurred because lhe petitioner er, Category-Il, on 23' 10' 1990' petitioner was promoted to Fitter Help f service as of O1'O3'1991' and which involved less than six months o , which was also involved less to Fitter, Category-IV' on 03'10'1991 than six months of sersice as of 01'O3 1992' D:ue to this' he was not eligible for annu.l increments during the years 1991 and 1992. tt is further submitted that Circular No'CRP/PER/PM/Anom/ 565' dated 18.03.2009 was issued in connection with rectiftcation of the anomaly in pay arising out of senior employees in the same pay scales covered by the sarire seniority list and same designation in a cadre getting lower pay than ttreir juniors However' the guidelines 6 PK, J Wp j0349 2023 contained in the above circulars will apply to (a) Daily rated employet:s pr,tmoted to Monthly rated (b) Monthly ratec employees promotecl ro hi3her monthly rated posts in a cadre and covered bv the same ser ir rit1. list

4.3. rectificatior Further, t.hr As p( r r.re guidelines of .IBCCI, the petitioner is not eligible for o - basic pay as there are no specific 6Jr.rirlelines for rectificatior: of basic pay anomaries arising in the wages r,,here daily rated NCW \ ertployees promoted to higher dail5. rated lategories 1tr:litioner, having worked since 23.O7. 19g9 and having accepted tl: e n ages to date, and being due for retirr:ment on 37.O8.2O2',?, calnot dispute the matter after such a long period of time. The p :tit oner is challenging the impugned proceedir:gs, dated 25.12.201T lftr:r. long lapse of seven years. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liatle to the dismissed on the ground of delal and laches. 5. This (} ur1 has taken note of the submissions made b,r learned counsei for tl_. e rr:.;pective parties.

6. On pen rsai of the record, it is evident that the petitioner, who was initially appointed as Fitter Trainee in Category_I on 23.02.1,9g9, is being paid less thal his junior i.e., D. Venkat Reddy, r,,rho was appointed on 26 08.1990. Both employees performed sim ar duties Y I I I I t l i '7 PK' J Wp-30349 2023 and hetd similar positions' The anomaly arose because D'Venkat Reddy received two increments in the same year (annual and promotional) while the petitioner received only one promotional increment. As per the Rules of respondent No'1-Company' the common incremental date is l"t March for all daily rated employees and those, who put in more than six months of service as of 1"t March, are entitled to one annual increment' The petitioner' however' was promoted to Fitler Category-Il on 23' 10' 1990 and Fitter Category-IV on 03 10 1991' both of which involved less than six months of service as of O1'03'1991 and 01'03'1992 respectively' This led to the petitioner losing the annual increments. for the years tgglTgg2'whereashisjunior-D.VenkatReddy,benefitedfromboth annual and promotional increment' resulting in a continued pay disparitY

7. Further, the representation of the petitioner' dated O6 11'2017' wherein he sought for correction of basic pay anomaly that arose in 1gg1-g2, was rejected stating that there are no specihc guidelines undertheJBCCIforrectifyingbasicpayarromaliesfordailyrated employees, who were promoted to higher daily rated categories' Mere absence of guidelines for rectihcation of basic pay anomaly' cannot be a ground much less tenable /justihabie' for rejecting the claim of the 8 PK, J nlp 30349_2023 petitioner. Irrrr the error on the part of the respond,rnts, which resulted it r p r\. anomaly of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be prejudiccd. Therefore, the impugned rejectlon orrler, dated 25.72.207,, ir; not sustainable under the law and is liable to be set aside.

8. As rr gar.rls the contention of the learned Stancling (lounsel on the quesl-i< n ol limitation that the petitioner is challengi ng the pay anomaly r ght. from the year 1995, it is apt to nor,e that in M.R.Gupta,s r:zLse (referred supra), the Hon,ble Supreme Court has he .ld as follc vrs a -;pi;r/.. .t The Ttibutt<tl mtsdirected itsetf u)hen fi treated the appellcznt,s cl.qim as ,one tlm , a(.t:on, meanins the;bs ;hoi ;';.; ;;; y cont,,ttti,ts *,ons based o L e r=cltmno "ntlse oS aition. ftn .toi^*to be pat(l the cotect satary c)nLpute(t on'the bctsts ;f ;:;p;;;;;;;"';";: * o isht u)hich subsists d/,rri,rs the entire^ tenure iy slrui{e";;;';;; ;" exercls.t(i at the time o,f , .oct, p(1srruent oy tne sati,g in;;-r;; is etltt:ted to salary c.mp r.ett corecig in o".orioii"--i;;*r;; ili;, hts igtlt of a Gouemm?nt s?ruant to be paid the .oo""t ,olafi ,i)irgnou, llis tetlure accordinl, to contputation in a"cordaiie;u;";;"", is akttt to the right o.r teder ptto, LDhich * "" ir,.ra"i j;;;;";;:'.n mortsase and subslsrs so Lnd os rhe TolqrS. irse/f subslsts, ,rt$ rt.o t(lritu of redem1,ti,,n r -x,it tqu rshe.d.. rt .is'sen tii', h-;-,;;;'ls;;';V ,ed, nprio.t is of this kirLd (s* rhota china subba i; ;;;:;;' Jrs. uaxapati, aaiu and Otite..s, I ? IgSO Federal Court 1)...,, In vierr of thc above settled principle of law, this Cotrrt is of the considered vreu, thar the gricvance of the petitioner is in the nature of _made

9. ;; 9 PK, J Wp-30349 2023 recurring cause of action and therefore the question of the delay does not arise in case of the Petitioner

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings in Ref'NoCRP/PF;RlPMl3369lGR/2590' dated,25.12.2017 and the respondents ale directed to pay the salary to the petitioner on par with D'Venkat Reddy' who is junior to the petitioner. Miseellaneous aPPlications' if anY, Pending in this Writ Petition, shail stand closed' There shall be no order as to costs SD/.N. SRIHARI TANT REGISTRAR ASSI //TRUE COPY/' ECTION OFFICER r I To Ir \\ Limited, Managi Lakadik ng Director, Singareni co ries ComP apool, Red Hills, HYderabad - 500 004 1. The Chairman and (TS Singareni Bhavan, 2. fhe Director (Personnel, Adminis tration and Welfare), The Singareni Collieries ComPanY Limited, Head Office, Kothagudem Collieries- 507101 , Bhadradri- Kothagu dem Dist. (TS) The General Manager (Personnel) (lR and PM), The Sing areni Collieries CompanY Limited, Head Office, Kothagudem Collieries- 507 101, Bhadradri Kothagud em Dist. (TS) Ramagundam- lll Area, Ramagunda m, Centenary ColonY, Peddapalli District- 50s 212 (TS) &:, cc toEnr rnr,! neALLITHTRUMALA RAo' a0Veq"*[on[[SlLtERtES ffi;6 i6 Siii p i-nr HARSHA REDDY' sc FoR slNc CO LTD [OPUC] Two CD CoPies

4. The Gene ral lvlanager, The Singare ni Collieries ComPanY Lim ited, 5 o

7. PSK,uts HIGH COIJR'r DATED:24 t01t2025 ORDER WP.No.3O1i49 of 2023 t}le :rA 14. 7 q 5 1,3 01 APR 2025 '.A ( r ? i o ,li5n416Uil .*: o1 ALLOWINCJ THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS g)q'u 3\{