Dharam Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Judgment

5. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment Department, Government of Telangana, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad-500029 The Zilla Praja Parishad, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Kadthal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from 34 long years on full tlme basis by not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, on par with regularly engaged Last Grade employees as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16, 21, 39 (d), 43, of our Constitution and violation of Section 1 3 and 1 5 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and, amounts to exploitative enstavement in not implementing similar Last Grade pay granted in G.o. Rt. No. 155 (pR and RD 142 MZET), dated 22-3-2021, G.o.Rt No. 253, dated 1-7-2021 and G.o.Rt.No.63g Panchayat Raj and Rural Development(PTS.lV) Department, dated 06.12.2019 from time to time and prays to direct the Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner as per orders of Apex Court in the case of prem singh'Vs State of U.P. (2.019) (1)scc 516) and in wp No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch cases dated 02-0s-2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) and in w.A. No. 483 of 2021, dated 05-08-2021 based on principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No.1254 of 2018, dated 23-03-2018 and in C.A. No. 8558 of 2018, Dated 19- oB-2025 Dharam Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh with consequential monetary benefits in the last grade post including periodical increments, as revised from time to time and seniority by applying the aforesaid principles and decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Division Benches under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in the similar case of petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to direct the respondents to appry the G.0 Rt. No. 15s (pR and RD 142ET) Department, dated 22-3-2021 and G.o.Rt.No.639 Panehayat Raj and Rural Devetopment( PTS'lV) Department, dated 06.12.2019 to pay last grade time scale on par with regularly engaged last grade employees along with periodical increments as revised from time to time as per the orders granted in similar case in 1.A No. 1 of 2018 in W'P' No' 8481 oI 2018, dated 15-3-2018 on par with similarly situated persons case as per Articles 14,21, 39(D) and 43 of our Constitution forthwith Counsel for the petitioner: SRI CH. GANESH counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3: Gp FoR 'ERVI.ES counselfor the Respondent No.2 : Gp FoR sERVrcEs - il Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : sRr F6;Hifil,the 'RADEE' _ ll REDD' KArrA, sc Tfe Court made the foilowing: ORDER a ,,, - IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITON No.3O816 oF 2025 THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FTVE Between : J.Sat5zanarayana. AND . . . Petitioner The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Panchayath Raj Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others. ORDER: ... Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: "...to issue an order or direction more particularlA one in the nclture of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the Respondents in not treating the servbes of petitioner as regular one in lait grade post for u.torking from 34 long years on full ttme basis by not paring kr'gitimLte wages of Full Tim.e Sueeper, on par uith regularlg engaged-Lust Grade q: unjust, unfair, totallg arbitrary and uiolation of Arlicle 14, "rypl-oy.? 16,-21, 39 (d), 43, of our Constitution and violation of Sectioi j3 ond 13 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and prouisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and qmounts to exploitatiue enslavemeni ir, not imptenrcnting similar Lost Grade pag granted in O.O Rt. 1yo.I55 (qRARD i42 MZEd, 2 PK,J wp_3o8 16_2025 dated 22-3-2021, G.O.RI No.253, dated t-7-2021 and G.O.Rt.Na639 Panchagat Raj and Rural Deuelopment (prs.M) Department, d.ated 06.12.2019 from time to time and prags to direct the Reipond.ents herein to treat the serutces of the petitioner as regular one in last grad.e post from the date of initiaL appointment of the petitioner a.s per ordirs of Apex couri in the case of Prem singh vs state of u.p. (2019) (1) scc s16) ind in WP No.33936 of 2O17 and Batch cases dated O2-OS-2O18 (2O2O (4) ALD 379 fS PB) and in W.A. No.483 of 2021, dated 0*08-2021 based on principle laid bg the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No.12S4 of 201g, dated 23-03-2018 and in C.A. No.8S58 of 2Ot8 Dated tg.O8.2O2S Dlwram singh I/s stafe of uttar pradesh with conseqttential monetary benefits in the last grad.e post including peiodical increments as reuised. from time to time and. senioitg bg applging the aforesaid principtes and. decision of the Honble Apex court & Diuision Benches under Article 141 of our constitution bg this Hon'ble courT in the similar case of petitioner and pass..."

2. Heard sri ch.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Services-tl for respondent Nos.l and 3; learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill for respondent No.2; and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standing counsel for zilla Praja Parishad and Mandal Parishad Development officer, appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Part-Time Sweeper on o6.L2.lggl with a consolidated pay of Rs.250/- per month and is currently working as a Full-Time sweeper and performing duties on par with regular employees. Nevertheless, the petitioner is being paid only Rs.S,2oo/ - per month, though the legitimate wage for a Full- t Time Sweeper is Rs.L9,OOO/- per month, which is being paid to ; .,/. 3 PK,J wp__30816_2025 similarly placed employees in the school Education arrd Panchayat Rd Departments. It is further submitted that one Sri K. Karunakar, a colleague working as a part-Time Sweeper, had drawn Rs.l5,1u0/- per month up to May 2021 and had been drawing Rs.2 L,ooo /- per month from June 2o2l onwards, whereas the petitioner, despite working full time, continues to receive only Rs.S ,2ool- per month. Further, this court, by order dated 15.03.2018 in I.A. No.l of 2018 in w.p. No.g4g1 of 2018, directed the respondents to pay the petitioners therein, who were working as part time workers in the schools of Ranga Reddy, Karimnagar, Nalgonda, Rajanna sircilla and. warangal Districts, on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the minimum of the pay scale applicable to regularly engaged Government employees holding corresponding posts. The said order was subsequently confirmed by the Division Bench of this court uid.e jud,gment dated 02.06.2021 in w.A. No.160 of 2o2L Moreover, the respondents have implemented the said directions through G.o. Rt. No.155 dated22.o3.2o2|. It is also submitted that, in similar circumstances, the Government of Telangana has extended the payment of minimum time scale to the part-time workers working \ \ \ I 4 PK,J wp_30816 202s in the schools of Nargond.a, Nizambad, warangal and Karimnagar Districts, as per the order of this court in I.A. No.l of 2o1g in w.P. No.6258 of 2or8 uid.e G.o. Rt. No.639 dated 06.12.2019,.to the part-time workers working irr the schoors of Nalgonda, Nizamabad, Karimnagar, siddipet, Mancherial and Rangareddy Districts, as per the order of this court in t.A. No.l of 2019 in w.P. No.6205 of 2or9 uid.e G.o. Ms. No.10 dated 04.0 r.2o2o. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not treating the petitioner's services as regular in a last grade post, despite having worked for fuil-time for the past 34 years, and their continued denial of legitimate wages payable to a F,ll-Time sweeper on par \Mith regularly engaged iast grade employees, is unfair, ilegar, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, L6,2r,3g(d) and 43 of the constitution of India- In support of his contentions, rearned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Honble Apex court in the case of prem singh a. state of u.p.r and ffrl:te Of htnjAb u. Jagiit Singhz | 2Or9 (l) scc 516 2 2Or7 (1) SCC 148 iL 5 PK,J wp-308 l6-2025

4. Per contra, learned Standing counsel appearing for respond.ent Nos.4 and 5 submits that the petitioner was appointed as a PTF (Part-Time Functionaries) uide proceedings dated 06.t2.lggl and is presently drawing a consolidated amount of Rs.5,2OOl- per month. The petitioner's services are required only for I to 2 hours a day, as the post is purely part-time in nature and the Head Master concerned engages him only for that timited durat-ion. Therefore, the petitioner is being paid the consolidated remuneration of Rs.S,2OO/- as prescribed under G.O. Ms. No.64 dated t5.o6.2027. Furthermore, the Head Master concerned is utilizing the petitioner's services only as per part- time requirements and not for full-time work equivalent to that of regular employees. It is further submitted that the Government had formulated a scheme to regularize the services of PTFs, daily- wage employees/NMRs and FTFs (Full-Time Functionaries) by absorbing them into regular Class-lV/Office Subordinate posts, provided they had completed 5/ 10 years of continuous service by

25.tL 1993. The Government issued G.o. (P) No.112 dated

23.07.1997 and G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.04.1994 in this regard. However, the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions prescribed \ \ , , .../. .: 6 PK,J wp_30816_2025 under the aforesaid G.os. It is also submitted that the petitioner, being a Part-Time Sweeper, does not fall within the definition of a daily-wage worker and, therefore, is not covered under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 or the Equal Remuneration Act, L976. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the material available on record.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Part- Time Sweeper on 06.12.7991 with a consolidated pay of Rs.250/- per month. According to the petitioner, he is a Full-Time Sweeper and he is entitled for payment of minimum time scale attached to the post of Sweeper on par with his Colleague. However, the respondents categorically contend that the petitioner is working on part-time basis only and his services were never regularized by the respondents. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition involves serious disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution ; I I r.,_r'_' _ ::;' ' L 7 PK,J wp_30816_2025 of India. Hence, this court is of the view that it wourd be appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents, narrating all the relevant facts and citing applicabie case raws incruding the decisions relied upon by the petitioner in the cases of prem singh(l supra) and Jaglit singh (2 supra), within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such a representation, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with raw, as expeditiousry as possible, preferably within six (6) weeks therefrom and communicate a copy of such decision to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of. Miscelraneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed There sha_ll be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII Sol-A.rr.S. coWnt sHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,{ L/- SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 I +iS S,:tr3f+"ffi"rf31',fril:ifJ3th raj Depa rtme nt, re ra n g a n a s ecreta ria t, I 3' The commissioner, panchayat Govern me nt of Te la ng";;, ifir;:rtnaga r, Hyd erabad _ s00029 3::*fil,x1:of I"t 1338flt",!',lilf;, rilj",llx1 i, n D epa rtm e nt, re ra nsa n a B"j and Rurar Emproy^ment Department, praia parishad, Ranga Reddv District, Rep. by its chief Executive ##flSflifl,.,llfii Deveropment orricer, Mandar praja parishad, Kadthar, 5?r%"Z;]', 4' 5' IoPUCI Y' I

7. One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA' SC FOR ZPP&tvlPD g. Two ccs to Gp FOR SERVICES - ll, High court for the State of relangana g, Two ccs to GP FOR SERVICES - lll, High court for the State of Telangana /

10.Two CD CoPies PVL BS HIGH COURT /1 GC.TODAY DATED i0511212025 r I \ ORDER WP.No.30816 of 2025 \ t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS te-\a,r t