High Court · 2025

B. K. Srinivasa Chary, S/o. Ramabrahmam, Age. 56 years, Occ. JTO O/o. Dy. Executive Engineer, PRSD, Kothagudem.

9. S. Syam Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, Age. 51 years, Occ. TA, O/o. PIU Division, Warangal.

10.S K S S Gopan,, S/o: G Krishnamacharyulu, Age. 52 years, Occ. Typist, O/o District P.R.Engineer, PIU Kothagudem. 11.Alladi Appa Rao, Sio: Late Surya Rao, Subordinate, O/o District P.R.Engineer, Kothagudem District. Age PIU 49 years, Occ. Office Kothagudem Bhadradri

12.P Hari, S/o: Narasimhulu, Age.55 years, Occ. Driver, O/o District P.R.Engineer, PIU Kothagudem. AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS I I

2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj Department Errmanzil, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Unit Office, Z.P.Complex, Subedari, Warangal, Warangal District.

4. The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Z.P.Office Back side, Khammam, Khammam District.

5. The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Z.P compound, Karimnagar, Karimnagar 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS.- A) by declaring the entire action of the respondents, particularly the entire action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned Memo No.Ser.l(3)/5450t2016, dated 21 .11.2022, wherein issuing the orders stating that' petitioners herein are not eligible for protecting pay scales which were drawing prior to regularization of their services is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust' improper, colourable exercise of power and violative of principles of natural iustice, contrary to judgment of High Court of AP reported in 2022 (5) ALD 570 (AP) as well as judgment of this Honble Court in WP No.622912O20, daied 22.11.2022 in the same subject matter and set aside or quash the same. B) And further hold that, the petitioners herein are entitled for pay and allowances which were drawing prior to their regularization of services ordered vide G.O.Ms.No.12 PR and RD (LTE) Dept., dated 05.05.2022 with all consequential benefits without reference to the present impugned Memo No.Ser.1(3y5450/2016, daled 2'l .11 .2022 of lhe 2nd respondent. (c) And consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith pay the salary and other allowances of the petitioners by duly protecting the pay scales of the petitioners which were drawn prior to regularization of their services in view of law laid down by this Honble High Court of AP in its reported judgment 2022 (5) ALD 570 (AP) r/w recent judgment of this Honble Court in WP No.622912O20, dated 22.11.2022 without reference to the present impugned Memo No.Ser.1(3)/545012016, dated 21 .11.2022 of lhe 2nd respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 3 / Petition under section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct therespondentstoprotectthepayScalesandpaythesalaryandotherallowances of the petitioners which were drawing prior to regularization of their services in viewoflawlaiddownbythisHon.bleHighCourtofAPinitsreportedjudgment 2022(s)ALD570(AP)r/wrecentjudgmentofthisHon,bleCourtinWP No.622912020, dated 22.11.2022by suspending the present impugned Memo No ' S er. 1(3)/5450/2016, dated 21 .11.2022 of the 2nd respondent' IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 suspend the order daled21-02-2023 in W P No' 45132 ot 2022' Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-Ii WRIT PETITION NO:45384 oF 2022 Between: District. Badradri Kothagudem District. 1 . Thanneeru Srinivasa Rao, S/o: Kotaiah, lg9 -51 .ye3rs' Occ'. Junior Technical ' ofil;;;; o/; bv.-riecutive Engineer, PRSD, Mulakalapallv' Ashwaraopet' 2. Ch. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Saidaiah, {Sg.5] years, Occ' Junior Technical - 6ffi;, Oi; oy. fiecutive engineet, PR'SD, Doinakal' Mahabubabad District' 3. Marla Srinivas, S/o Ramachandra Murthy, lO-e. 55 years',. Occ Junior " iLli,]1i"ii oifiiirr, o/o oy. eiecutive Engine'er, pRsD, sathupally, Khammam 4. Gunti Kumara Swamy, S/o. Veera Sryam.y, Age. 49 yea.rs' Occ' Junior - iJiiinitil Omc"1 Oto''OV.-Executive Engiiieer, PRSD, Tirumalayapalem, 5. Pillalamarri Ravi Kumar, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Age. 58 years, occ Junior " iijJnn..iili Offrcer Olo Oyl eiecutive Engineer, PRSD, Narsampeta, Warangal 6. Vemulapalli Kesava Rao, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao Aoe' 54 vears' Occ' 'oi" bJ;.' E,";utivJ engine6r' PRSD' Gudur' 7. Pasupuleti Narasimharao, Sio.Koteswararao,- 499' 47 years' , O. cc Junior ' i".[IiiiiOffiter O/o Ov.-ixecutive Engineer, PRSD, Huzurabad, Karimnagar Junior Technicar omcJi Mahabubabad District. Khammam, Khammam District. Rural District. District. t , ---+

8. K.V.S.D Srinivas, S/o. Gopala Krishna Murthy, Age.53 years, Occ. Technical Assistant, O/o. District Panchayatraj Engineer, Pi U Division, Mahabubabad District.

9. Ayyadevara Suvarna, D/o. Ramakrishnaiah. Age.54 years, Occ. Typist, O/o. Disirict Panchayatraj Engineer, PIU Division, Khammam, Khammam District ...PETTTTONER(S) AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, P.Rajand Rural Development Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 3 4 The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj Department Errmanzil, Hyderabad. The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Regional Office, Z.P.Complex, Subedari, Warangal, Warangal District. The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Regional Office, ...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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS A) by declaring the entire action of the respondents, particularly the entire action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned Memo No.Ser. 1(3)/5450/2016, daled21 .11.2022, wherein issuing the orders stating that, petitioners herein are not eligible for protecting pay scales which were drawing prior to regularization of their services is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colourable exercise of power and violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to judgment of High Court of AP reported in 2022 (5) ALD 570 (AP) as well as judgment of this Honble Court in WP No.62291202O, daled 22.11.2022 in the same subject matter and set aside or quash the same. B) And further hold that, the petitioners herein are entitled for pay and allowances which were drawing prior to their regularization of services ordered vide G.O.Ms.No.12 PR and RD (LTE) Dept., dated 05.05.2022 with all consequential benefits without reference to the present impugned Memo No.Ser.1(3)1545012016, dated 21 .11.2022 of the 2nd respondent. (c) And consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith pay the salary and other allowances of the petitioners by duly protecting the pay scales of the petitioners which were drawn prior to regularization of their services in view of law laid down by this Honble High Court of AP in its reported judgment 2022 (5) ALD 570 (AP) r/w recent judgment of this Honble Court in WP No.62291202O, I I I I .4 .// .-' { dated 22.11.2022 without reference to the present impugned Memo No.Ser.l (3)/545012016, dated 21.'l'l .2022 ot the 2nd respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 ro direct the respondents to protect the pay scales and pay the salary and other allowances of the petitioners which were drawing prior to regularization of their services in view of law laid down by this Hon'ble High court of Ap in its reported judgment 2022 (5) ALD 570 (AP) r/w recent judgment of this Honbte court in wp No.622912O20, dated 2211'll2O22 by suspending the present impugned Memo No.Ser.'1 (3)'1 54 50 I 20 1 6, dated 21 I 1 1 I ZO22 of the 2nd respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 suspend the operation of the lmpugned Memo No.A2I4563/NMF/201 5, Dt: o5lo1l2o23 of the 3rd respondent to enable the petitioners to get their salary and other allowances which were getting prior to orders of regularization issued in G.O.fvls.No.12, Dt:O510512022 of the 1st respondent. IA NO: 3 OF 2023 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 suspend the order dated 21-O2-2O23 in W.P. No. 45384 of 2O22, pending disposat of the Review Petition Counsel for the Petitioners; SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: COMMMON ORDER ilF a THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION Nos.45132 and 45384 of 2022 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order. 2l In both the writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in holding that the petitioners are not eligible for protection of their pay scales which they were drawing prior to regularization of their services. 3) Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing for the respondents. 4l The case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that after due consideration oI qualihcations, eligibility and suitability of the petitioners, they were engaged as NMR employees during the year 1990-1993 respectively in the respondent department. Subsequently, taking into consideration their long length of continuous scrvices as well as technical qualifications, respondent No. t has extended the beneht of minimum time scale of pay attached to the post of Work Inspectors to the petitioners and others vide G.O.Rt.No.1475, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development -2- (E-II.A) Dept., dated 27.10.2007. Thereafter, based on the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners were also extended annual grade increments from the date of granting minimum time scales, 'iide G.O.Rt.No.468, PR & RD (PR.ll) Dept., dated 23.07.2O15, and they were also extended the benefrt of pay revisions from time to time along with Government Servalts. Subsequent thereto, services of the petitioners and others were regularized by respondent No. 1 duiy following the ratio laid down by the Honlcle Apex Court in State of Karnataka u. tlma Devil. Thereafter, on ciarification sought by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 21. 1 1.2022 has clarified that the petitioners are not entitled for protection of pay. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the event of regularization of services of the petitioners in a prospective manner, the pay which is being drawn by the petitioners prior to regularization cannot be reduced in any manner and the pay should be protected. Further, the pay of the petitioners prior to their regularization was revised from time to time in furtherance of judicial pronouncements. Learned counsel by placing reliance on Rule 22-B(i) of Fundamental Rules has contended that the ' zooo (a) scc r f 3- respondents cannot fix the pay lesser than the pay scale which was being paid to the petitioners prior to their regularization and therefore the action of the respondents is illegal and irrational. Learned counsel has further contended that prior to regularization, based on several judicial pronouncements, the respondents have extended the benefit of periodical increments to the petitioners and therefore the action of the respondents in reducing the pay of the petitioners is bad in law and unsustainable in the eye of the law. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 21.1L2O22. Reliance has been placed on: 1) 2) Order dated 15.06.2015 passed by the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2g55 of 2Ol2 & batch as conhrmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7537 of 2016, dated 1O.O3.2O16; Order dated 22.11.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6229 of 2O2O; 3) P.Khader Basha and others a. State oJ Andhra.pradcsh2; 6) Per contra, the learned Government pleader has contended that the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted as per FR 22(a) as the services of NMRs(MTS) employees whose services do not come under the purview of Fundamental Rules and whose services are regularized and appointed against the sanctioned 'zozz 1s; nlo szo leey 4- posts are not eligible for protection of pay in appointed post, from the category of NMR. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petltlons. 7l This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the material on record. 8) As can be seen from the record, initiaily the petitioners were engaged as NMR employees during the year 1990-1993 respectively. Vide G.O.Rt.No.1475, PR & RD, dated 27.1O.2OO7, they were extended the benefit of minimum time scale of pay' Further, vide G.O.Rt.No.46B, dated 23.07.2015, the petitioners were extended annual grade increments from the date of granting of minimum time scale. Further, the petitioners were also extended the benefit of pay revisions from time to time on par with regular Government employees. Thereafter, some of the petitioners have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.23965 of 2O2O seeking regularization of their services in terms of judlment of the Honble Supreme Court in tlma Deni's ca.se (reJerred supra). This Court vide order dated 09. l1.2o2l disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioners therein for regularization. In pursuance thereof, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.12, PR & RD (LTE) Dept', dated O5.O5.2O22, permitted respondent No.2 to regularize the services of )- I the petitioners therein along with others. Accordingly, the petitioners were also extended the benefit of regularization. 9) The only issue raised in these writ petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled for pay protection, which they were receiving/ drawing prior to the date of regularization of their SCTV].CCS- 10) In this context, it is apt to state that while dealing with a similar situation, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Khader Bcrsha's ca.se (reJerred supra) has held as under: "2O. Regularization of t] e petitioners' services cannot be to their detriment. While conferring the status of regular employee, on the matter of payment of pay, reducing them to the initial stage of pay scale would be arbitrary and violate the principle of equality i.e., equal pay for equal work. The petitioners though NMRs were being paid pay with increments at par the regular Government employees prior to their regularization which was in consonance with the principle of equal pay for equal work. After their placement in the regular pay scale the pay which" they were drawing pursuant to the orders issued by the respondents granting the minimum of time scale as also the alnual grade increments at par with Governrnent employees, cannot be taken away.

21. Therefore, on regularization the lixation of their pay iu a particular scale applicable to the respectlve post must be such as to ensure that the total emoluments which the petitioners were drawing, lmmediately preceding to the date I I I I -6- r of regularization are not reduced. The Corporation cannot fix pay lesser than the pay the petitioners were being paid on the date of their regularization. " (emphasis added) 11) In view of the above settled principle of law, this Court does not {ind any justification in the action of the respondents in reducing the pay of the petitioners. I2l Therefore, both the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned Memo No.Ser.l(3\ I 5450 I 2016, dated 21.1 1.2O22 issued by respondent No.2 is set aside and the respondents are directed to protect the pay scaies of the petitioners which were being drawn by them prior to regularization of their services. Misceilaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ThqF 9bel1 b9 -e9,9rd_er,as lo.costs- SD/. P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSIST T REGIS //TRUE COPY// S cTr ON OFFICER \ Subedari, Warangal, Waranqal District. seireiiriaf Buildings, fhe State 6f Teldngana Hyderabad' l.ThePrincioalsecretary,PanchayatRajandRuralDevelopmentDepartment 2. ih;'E;,si;;"r-in-Cfi.jr. Panchayat naj Dep-arJqghJ !qman4l, l-lyderabad' 5. ii'i" 5,jE6ti"1endins Engineer, Fanchavat Rai, Unit office, Z P Complex' +. ifie Sup<irintendi"ng'Enginee"r, Panchayat Raj, Z P Office Back side' 5. il;'S;dihieno ing Engineer, Panchavat Rai, Z'P compound' Karimnagar' 6. O;; CCio Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, Advocate [OPU-C] 7: iil cc.'t" 8. Two CD Copies for Services-tl, High Court forlhe State of Telangana' at Khamn'iam, Khammam District. Karimnaqar District. Hyderabad [OUT] -Cp To, TJ HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:1410212025 1 E STAI€ q f, O 19 ttB ?$fi 7-\al * .!i-s: r 1l' .:f' .:l COMMON ORDER WRIT PETITION Nos. 45132 and 45384 OF ZO2Z ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS