A. Ramchandar v. The State of Telangana

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 Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the records relating to the impugned orders issued by the 3rd respondent vide Proc. Lr. No. C29618/2016, dt, 22.8.2024 and set aside the same by declaring as illegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others Vs. Jagjith Singh and others (Reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148 and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit of minimum time scale as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of I t , I , Punjab & others Vs. Jagjith Singh & others (Reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148 on par with my juniors along with arrears and pass such other order or orders. As per court ordet, dt.251912025 Vide lA 112025 in WP No.4638,1!2022. Prayer is amended. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated tn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for extension of the benefit of minimum time sczle as per law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and ors Vs. Jagajith Singh and ors Reported in 2017 (1) SCC 149 forthwith, pending final disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Respondent No.2 : GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Respondent No.3&4 : SMT.R.MADHAV| LATHA, SC FOR SERVICES MATTERS OF MCs The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRTT PETTTION NO.46381OF 2022 DATED: .05.2026 Between: A.Ramachandar ... Petitioner AND The State ofTelangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others ... Respondents ORDER In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned orders dt.22.08.2024 arrd to set aside the same by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagiith Singh and othersr and consequently to direct the ' lzorzy r scc tct W.P.No.463E I ot2022 2 respondents to extend the benefit of minimum time scale as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in rhe case ol State of punjab and others Vs. Jagiith Singh and others (l supra) on par with the petitioner's juniors and also to pay the arrears and to pass such other order or orders.

#2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ petition are that the petitioner was appoinred as a Public Health Worker on 01.09.19g7 on daily wage basis in respondent No.4 organization and when his services were terminated orally on 01.05.1993 without assigning any reasons and without any notice, the termination order was challenged in I.D.No. 163 ol 1996 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and vde order dt.3 1.07.1998, thc Labour court granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service.but without back wages and the same was assailed by respondent No.4 in W.P.No.2l392 of 2002 before this Courr. It is submitted that despite being reinstated, the petitioner is receiving only Rs. 10,000/- per month, while the juniors of the petitioner are receiving the minimum time scale and regularisation status since 16.03.2009. It is submitted that the Hon, ble Supreme Court in the case of A.Manjula Bhashini and others Vs. Managing Director, Andhra pradesh i a W P'No 463E I of2022 3 Women's Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited and another2 citing G.O.Ms.No.2l2, Finance and Planning Department' dated

22.O4.lg94 directed the Govemment of Andhra Pradesh to regularise all eligible daily wage, temporary part time employees within four months regardless of any prior dismissed legal claims lt is submitted that though respondent No.4, vide lettr'l. dt'28'02'2017, has addressed to the District Cotlector/Chairman, Nizamabad and confi rmed the availabitity of 3 vacancies, the respondents have laited to regularise the services of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has made a representation dt.04'05.2015 for regularisation of his services' but the respondents have not taken any action thereon and therefore' the petitioner filed O.A.No.6320 of 2015 and due to the Tribunal's abolition, the case was transferred to this Court and is pending for consideration before this Court and that the respondents have not filed a counter aflidavit in the said case till date' The petitioner is therefore seeking a direction to the respondents to pay minimum time scale olpay to the petitioner on the principle of 'equal pay lor equal work' as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State o[ Punjab and others Vs. Jagiith Singh and others (l supra)' '(2009) E scc 4l I I I I I I i W-P.No.46381 of 2022 a 4

#3. Respondent No.4 has filed a counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the directions of rhe Labour court, the petitioner has been reinstated into service on I l. | 2 -2002 and since the petitioner has already been reinstated into service, the writ petition filed by the corporation has been dismissed by this court on 20.03.2012. It is submitted that the petil"ioner was appointed as a daily wage vehicre loader in March, r990 and not in 1987 as claimed by the petitioner and that the said fact is confirmed by the Municipar council records dt.l r.0l.l993 and that the petitioner was reinstated into service vide order dt.rr.r2.2oo2 pursuant to the interim order of this court in w.p.M.p.No.26g4r of 2002 in W.P.No.2l392 of 20OZ dt.2O.1Z.ZOOZ and that the petitioner is receiving wages as an outsourcing/daily wage employee rather than a regular NMR worker. It is submitted that there are no similarry situated persons as that o[ the petitioner for parity and that the reference to one N.Venkatesh and 60 others who were receiving wages by orders dt.03.07.2007, 20.t2.2008 and 2j.tt.z}l}, is not applicable to the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner is not having regular attendance and therefore, the petitioner is not eligibre to be treated on par wyh other employees. // W.P.No.463E I of 2022 5

#4. Learned counsel for the petition€r as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.4 Corporation advanced arguments in line with the averments made in the writ affidavit and also the counter affidavit.

#5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in G. Mangaiah and another Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education and others3, wherein a direction was given to make the payment of minimum time scale attached to last grade employees of the Govemment of Telangana to the petitioners therein from the date of filing of the O.A. He is seeking similar direction to pay the minimum of the time scale of pay.

#6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finG that this case is not for regularisation of the services of the petitioner, but is for payment of minimum time scale of pay of last grade employees to the petitioner from the date of his appointment. Similarly placed persons have already been considered by this Court in the case of G. Mangaiah and another Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education ' w.p.Gn)xo.6as3 of 2017 dr29.o1.2025 ,.1 W.P.No.4638l of 2022 (- 6 and others (3 supra), following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Corrrt of India in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagiith Singh and others (1 supra) and this Court has observed as under: "7. Having regard lo lhe rival contentions and the moterial on record, this tlourt finds that admi edb,, the petitioners have been u,orking from 1992 and 1993 respectivety and the petitioners u,ere being paid on par with the daily wagers ond their services hove not been regulari:ed It is also a foct that lhe rcgularization of the sen, ices can be made oniy if there existed sonctioned posts. As seen fron the details of the sanctioned post.t in the Government High School, Ricob Bazor, Khommam, there are no posts of sweeper or the watchman. This .fact itself sho+vs the apathy of the Government in making necessory orrongements lor the administration of the school. It is not understandable as to how a school can function without o sweeper and a v)otchman. Tht' contentions of the Head Master that the petilioners have been engaged on need basis also rhu they have been working in the same continuously from lhe year 1992 and 1993 onwards shows thal there was a need for o sweeper and a u,atchman. The respondents are therefore directed to create the posts of sweeper and watchman from the date of the engagement of the petilioners or subsequent thereto and thereafter, consider regularizalion of the sertices of these pelitioners with erfect from the date of their completion offive years of service.

#8. Further, irrespective of lhe regularization of the petilbners' servit'es, rhis Court f nds thtat Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case oJ[ State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others (AlR 2016 SC 5176) as held that even remporory employees are eligihle for the equal pay as thar ofregular employees i.e., the minimum F i 1 ! t I w.P.No.4638l of2022 7 time scale of pay attached to lhe post. Since there is no regular sanctioned po$ ofa sweeper or a watchman in this school, this Court is of the opinion that the scale atlached to the last grade employee of the Covernmenl should at leasl be paid to the petitioners as per the rationale laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagiit Singh (cited supra).

#9. The judgments relied upon by the learned Sovernment pleader in support of their conlenlions are distinguishable onfacts The Government has to be a model employer and should not be permitted to exploit the unemployed and exlract work from them wilhout making payment of reasonable wages. Therefore' the respondents ttre directed lo pay lhe minimum time scale of pay attached to the last grade employee of the Government of Telangana to the petitioners from the date offiling of the O.A. The resPondents are further directed to pass necessary orders in this regard within a period ofthree (3) months from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. t0 Accordingly, this writ petition is dispoied of There shall be no order as to costs. " I I

#7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been working as a daily wage worker lrom 1990 and after oral termination, the petitioner has also been reinstated into service in the year 2002. The petitioner is therefore eligible for minimum time scale of pay from the date of reinstatement, i.e., ll.l2.2OO2 because the reinstatement was ordered by the Labour Court without any back wages. W.P.No.4638l of 2022 r. ! 8

#8. The respondents are therefore directed to fix the minimum time scale ol pay to the pctitioner with effect from the date of his reinstatement into service, i.e., 11.12.2002 and grant him all the consequential benefits. The fixation of the pay as wellas the payment of consequential benefits/arrcars to the petitioner shall be made within a period of tour (04) months lrom the date of receipt of a copy of this

#9. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. l0' Pending miscerraneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. \I To, //TRUE GOPY// Sd/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER I Hyderabad. State Buildings, Hyderabad. Telangana State Buildings, Hyderabad.

#1. The Principat Secretary, MA and UD Department, Secretariat, Telangana 2. The principal Secretary, Finance and planning Department, Secretariat, 3. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration AC Guards, 4. The Commissioner, Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad, 5. One CC ro SRt p.RAGHAVENDRA 6. Two CCs to Gp FOR M!?!.|_DMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the Srate of 7. Two CCs to Gp FOR itry1rygE & PLANN|NG, High Court for the State of 8. One CC to SMT.R.MADHAV| LATHA, SC FOR SC FOR SERVTCES Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] REDDY, Advocate. tOpUCl Nizamabad District. MATTERS oF MUNtctpAL conponniibr.ri toiucl f. 9. Two CD Copies. BSK I I HIGH COURT DATED: 1410512026 VACATION COURT 1 6E 5I4 t ORDER J 1 5 ilAY 2025 WP.No.46381 of 2022 * P 2 o b ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t