High Court · 2025

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 lVandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not extendrng the benefit of minimum time scate attached to the post born in the last grade category w.e.f . 30.6.1 999 on par with juniors is illegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit of minimum time scale attached to the post born in the last grade category as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Pun.jab Vs. Jagjith Singh Reported in 2017 (1) SCC Page 148. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 50994 OF 2017) 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 respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of minrmum time scale in the category of Bill collector forthwith, pending final disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI p.RAGHAVENDRA REDDy Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI c.NARAYAN, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.4I077 of 2Ol7 ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on 01.10.1992 as a Section Writer on a daily wage basis in the erstwhile Malkaj igiri Municipality; however, he was terminated from service with effect from 0 I . I I . 1995 without following due process of law. Aggrieved thereby, he raised an Industrial Dispute by filing I.D.No. 132 of 1995 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. After due enquiry, the Labour Courl passed an Award directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and full back wages. The respondent-Municipality challenged the Award before this Court in W.P.No.241 17 of 1996, Uut tne same was dismissed by Order dated 14.1t.1996, thereby the Award of the Labour Court stood affirmed. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 30.06.1999. Upon the merger of erstwhile Malkajgiri Municipality, along with surrounding municipalities, into the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) in February 2007, the petitioner's services were taken over by the GHMC, and the petitioner is currently working in Circle- VltI. Abids, GHMC, HYderabad. After reinstatement, the petitioner continued to receive only the last drawn wage of Rs.l200/- per month, which was the wage at the time of termination. It is contended that payment of wages as per Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act would come into picture only when the award of the Labour Court is challenged before this Court by the respondent- authorities, and even if this Court passes interim orders suspending the Award of the Labour Court, is suspended, the wages under Section l7-B \- \ ^- .1 ) wp,4lo11 2011 NBK, J are still payable, provided the workman was not employed elsewhere during the interregnum; whereas in the instant case' the petitioner has continued in service but is stilt receiving the satne wages of Rs l2OOl- per month, which is inconsistent with his entitlement'

2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has completed more than 19 years of continuous seruice' yet continues to receive meager wages of Rs' 12001 per month' despite rvorking as a Bill Collector, thereby causing significant difficulty in maintaining his livetihood and family. It is contended that he is entitled to the minimum time scale of pay from the date of completion of five years of ser-vice' It is contended that the Govemment of Andhra Pradesh issued GOMs No'542 dated 31.08.2009, which . extended the time scale ol- pay to various categories of employees, inctuding NMRs' contract workers' part-time sweepers, safaiwalas, caretakers, community health volunteers' and ANMs working in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation; and despite the petitioner having worked since 1992, he has not been granted this benefit' whereas employees working in the Municipal Corporation of Vij ayawada were granted similar benefits' The petitioner also refers to GOMs No'823' dated23.ll.2008,whichprovidedsimilarbenef.itsinotherdepartments' He submits that he is similarly situated and entitled to the same benehts' considered the submissions, it may be noted that the petitioner has 3. been working on a daily wage basis, on par with other regular employees in the respondent deparlment' However' he is being paid lesser wages' even though he is entitled to the minimum time scale attached to the post of Bill Collector. The 1'r respondent-Goverrrment' has issued several Government orders extending the minimum time scale to daily wage, ( J wP-41071_2017 NBK. J fixed pay, and temporary employees in other departments, and though the petitioner is similarly situated to these employees, the respondents have failed to extend the benefit to him even though it has been granted to his juniors from 1996 onwards. The petitioner filed O.A.No.ll67 of 2012 before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal passed interim orders on 14.02.2012, directing the respondents to pay the minimum time scale attached to the post in the last grade category, but these orders have not been implemented. On 20.01.2015, the O.A was disposed of based on the counter fited by the GHMC, but the orders of the Tribunal have not been complied with til I date.

4. Questioning the non-implementation, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21262 of 2017 belore this Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to implement the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 1167 ol 2012 dated 20.01.2015; however, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that there was no reason forthcoming from the petitioner as to why he had not filed contempt petition before the Tribunal or why he did not even submit a representation to the respondents after the passing of the Tribunal's orders. Be that as. it may, it is the specihc contention of the petitioner in this writ petition that he submitted representations on 03.11.2015 and 20.05.2016, and had also sent a legal notice through his counsel on 06. 10.2017, requesting for payment of the minimum time scale, but the respondents have failed to take any action.

5. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singhr, held that daily wage, temporary, and contract workers who perform the same duties and responsibilities as | (2017 (t) scc 148) I I '_ -.,1 4 wp 41077 2017 NBK, J regular employees are entitled to the same pay as their regular counterparts; and in the instant case, it is not in dispute that minimum time scale attached to their respective posts has been extended to similarly situated employees. Further, this matter is of the yeat 2017, and the respondents have not even filed counter affidavit in spite of several adjoumments for almost a decade. In the light of the law laid down in Jagiit Singh (supra), this court is ofthe view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent-authorities to grant minimum time scale to the petitioner, as extended to similarly situated pbrsons from time to time, with continuity of service. Petitioner shalt bp entitled to back wages from the date of the Award i.e., 20.01.2015 (passed in C).A.No. ll67 of 2012)' No costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, this shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY' SD/. S.MALLIKARJU NA RAO SSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICE Secretariat Buildings, Corooration, HYderabad. it is Circle No.XlV) GHMC. To Hvderabad. Hyderabad, State of Telangana

1. The PrinciPal Secretary, tvlA and UD Departmen 2. The Commi ssioner, Greater HYd erabad MuniciPal 3. The DY. Co mmissioner, Abids' Circle No.8, (Now o il'"L"cCiJ sRl P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY'4!.'99?r' IoPUCI E rwo cCs to Gp rOn rV&. '' 6 o#'ic'i;'sRi6.unnevnfu, sc FoR GHMC [oPUCl 7. Two CD CoPies o Telinqana, at HYderabad lOUTl PSK TKS "L'nElr,L.i-Lj"pJeANl'OEV. Hign'Cour-t fbr the State of HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 I ORDER WP.No.41077 of 2017 \i- )i 1 ,o 1t ruB x6 \, t oE PATC r-l C L <\' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS