High Court · 2025

7. Kanithi Srinu, S/o. Dharmaiah, age 33 years, Working as SGT, Girijana Primary School, Vaddipeta, Charla Mandal, Khammam District.

8. Bhukyi Ramesh, S/o. Lalu, age 30 years, Working as SGT at Tribal Welfare Govt.-Primary School, Unjupallu, Charla Mandal, Khammam District. Primary School, Uniupally, Chada Mandal, Khammam District.

9. Dubba Ramdsh, S/o. Najeiwara Rao, age 38 years, Working as SGT, Asram 1 0. Syama-la Nagaraju, S/o.' Mallaiah, aged 33 years, Working as SGT, Tribal Welfare Ashiam' High School, Uyyalamadugu, Charla Mandal, Khammam District ...PETrroNER AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Proiect Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3. The Defiuty Director (TW), O/o. ITDA Bhadrachalam, Khammam District- 4. The Prdeit Officer, liDA, Eturunagaram, Jayasankar Bhupalpally District 5. The Heed Master, Asram High Schbol, Unjupally, Charla Mandal, Khammam District.

6. The Head Master, Asram High School, Chiruthapally-2, Venkatapuramu Mandal, Khammam District.

7. The Head Master, Asram High School, Pedomedisileru, Khammam District. I I Madi Sandhya. D/o...Mangaiah, school, Chunchupally Village, Warangal District. -Secondary Grade Teacher, Asram High ..,fIESPONDENTS Petition under Anicre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not effecting the pay scale of Bth respondent pay scare of Rs. 23100-21230-63010 instead of Rs. 21820-2123063010 pay scales to the petitioner.at piesent as alleged nult and void consequently pay the pay scales of gth respondent Rs. 231000-21230-6301o w.e.f. 2013 onwards and pay the consequential benefits to all the petitioners. LA. NO: 1OF 2017 (WP MP. NO : 52916 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 pteased to direct the 2nd respondent to pay the pay scares of gth respondent Rs. 23100-21230- 63100 instead of pay scale of Rs. 21820-21230-6301 t the petitioners since 2013 onwards and pay the all consequential benefits to all the petitioners, pending disposal of the writ petition lA NO: 1 OF 202tt Petition under Section r 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner w.e.f 02-04-2013 instead of 11- 08-20'14 and subsequent dates of appointment of the petitioners and to pay all consequential service benefits and back wages. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.pRADEEP KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 7: Gp FOR SERVTCES-II Counsel for the Respondent No,8: -- The Court made the following: ORDER / I , 1, w p _42665 _2O17 NBK,I HON'BLE SRI JUSTTC E NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.42665 of 2017 ORDER: The case of the petitioners, precisely, is that they were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers (SGT) in August 2013 vide Proceedings dated I I .08.2013 pursuant to the selections made through Special District Selection Committee Exam, 2012, and their pay was fixed at Rs. 10,9001 in the time scale of pay Rs.10900-3 1550 as per the Pay Revision Commission, 20 I 0 pay scales. Subsequently, their pay was fixed at Rs.2 1230/- in the time scale of pay Rs.21230-63010 in the Pay Revision Commission, 2015 pay scales, with effect fiom 01.07.2013. Presently, the petitioners pay is fixed at Rs.23,7401-.It is their grievance that respondent No.8, who is also an SGT appointed through the same notification, has been placed at Rs'25,840/- in the time scale of pay Rs.21230-63010, and the petitioners submitted representations to the 2nd respondent-Project Offrcer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam, on I 8. I 1.201 6 and 14.11.2017 requesting to fi x the same pay to them as well, as is being implemented in the case of 8th respondent, but their representations have not been acted upon till now.

2. Heard Mr. S. Pradeep Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioners; and leamed Govemment Pleader for Services-Il. Perused the record' None appeared for respondent No.8 though notice was served. 3 . Leamed counsel for petitioners made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit. He relied on the Order dated29.06.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench ofthis Court in WP.No.21193 of 2017.

4. The sum and substance of the contentions of the leamed Government Pleader, basing on the counter affidavit filed by respondent No'3-Deputy 2 w p 42 665 _2077 N8K,.J Director (TW). is that the 2nd respondent has constituted a Verification Team for verification ol'Agency Area Certificates and the team has laken the files from the Mandal Tahsildars concerned and certain objections relating to genealogy of the candidates were found. It is contended that the Genealogical Tree Certificates are required from the Revenue Department as per G.O.Ms.No.l. SW (TW EDN-Il) Department, dated 10.01.2000 as local Scheduled 'lribes as notified under Article 342 of the Clonstitution of India would be considered for appointment, and it needs to be ascertained that the candidates are, or their parents, have been continuously residing in the scheduled area ol the District in which they are residents since 26 January 1950. k is fiuther contended that the SGT posts are allotted to districts and the appointments are within the district; and. therefore, they cannot be compared to other districts. lt is contended that the petitioners belong to Kharnmarn District, and the Sth respondent belongs to Warangal District and further the benefits are granted from the appointrnent date only, and the petitioners havejoined in August 2013 and the 8th respondent joined in April 2013 rvhich is before the Pay Revision Commission 2015, and therefore there is no merit in the writ petition.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is pertinent to refbr to the relevant paragraphs in page No.3 of the counter affidavit filed hy respondent No.3-Deputy Director (TW), which read as follows: "lt is respectfully submit that the petitioners are appointed on 1'1.08.2013 as Secondary Grade Teacher vide Procgs.Rc.No.A2lDD(TWy536/2012, D!.1l.08.2013 the pay fixed Rs.10900/- in the time scale of 10900-300-11200-330-12190-360- 1327 0-390-1 4440420-1 5700450-t 7050490-1 8520-530-201 I 0-570- 21 820-61 0-23650-650-25600-700-27700-7 50-29950-800-31 s50 in the l l I I 3 wo _42665 _2011 NBK, J Pay Revision Commission 2010' Accordingly the petitioners pay fixed Rs.2{230 in the time scale 21230-63010 in Pay Revision Commission 2015 w.e.f. 01.07.2013' At present the petitioners are getting Rs.23740! they are joined on 11'08'2013 there is no question araised before joining date of 8h respondent who is belongs to Warangal District. Every Employee takes the criteria for their appointment date and takes the benefits from the appointment date onlY. It is respectfully submit that the th respondent has appointed in April 2013 in the pay Rs'10900/- in the time scale 10900- 31500 in Pay Revision Commission 2010 accordingly the 8th respondent pay fixed Rs.21230/- in the time scale 21230-63010 in Pay Revision Commission 2015 w'e'f' 01'07 '2013' but the 8th respondent pay raised Rs.2584Of in the time scale 21230-63010 in the Pay Revision Commission 2015 due to her appointment before the Pay Revision Commission 2015 effect from 01'07'2013' There is no consequential benefits allowed to the petitioners is equal to 8th respondent who is belongs to Warangal District'"

6. A perusal of the averments in the counter afhdavit' extracted above' would show that both the petitioners as well as 8th respondent have been placed at identical pay, flxed at Rs.21230 as per Pay Revision Comrnission 2015, but the pay of 8rh respondent has been raised to Rs'258401-"['he reason stated tbr increasing the pay of 8th respondent is that her appointment was before the Pay Revision Commission 2015 w'e'f' 01'07'2013' cannot stand to scrutiny for the reason that both the Sth respondent as well as the petitioners were recruited in the same Special DSC-2012 notification' It may further be noted that the Scheduled Tribes belonging to 7. respective Districts are given posting in their Districts after necessary verification and ascertainment that they belong to those Districts; however, merely for the reason that they belong to different Districts (or posted in 4 -42665_2077 NBK,I different Districts) does not imply that the pay scales should differ for the employees. Therefore, the reason stated in the counter that the 8th respondent is from Warangal District and the petitioners are posted to Khammam District does not stand to any reasonable logic.

8. Furthermore. the delay in joining of duties by the petitioners in Kiammam District. is on account of the delay in certificate verification which is a matter of administrative procedure on the part of respondents, and therefore the delay in joining by four months cannot act to the disadvantage ofthe petitioners by differential treatment in pay scale. It is to be noted that once the candidates are commonly recmited under an employment notification, any adrninistrative delay on the part of authorities in issuing posting orders (giving rise to delays in joining) cannot be attributed to the candidates and their pay scale cannot be differentiated with other colleagues who happened to.join earlier due to faster verification in their case.

9. At this j uncture, it is relevant to refer to the Order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2ll93 of 2017, dated,

29.06.2017 wherein it was held as follows: "lt is settled law that when recruitment has taken place and selections have been finalized and there is a delay in issuance of the appointment orders to certain candidates due to administrative reasons or pendency of Court cases, such delay cannot be attributable to the candidates. lt is settled law that such type of candidates who are appointed at a later point of time, are entitled to the benefit of seniority on par with their batch-mates."

10. In view of the order dated 29 .06.2017 passed by the I-lon'ble Division Bench in W.P.No.2l193 of 2017, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. I i I 5 wp_42665 _2077 NBK, J 1 l. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to grant the same pay scale effected in the case of 8th respondent to the petitioners, with effect from 2013 onwards, along with all consequential benefits, within a period of eight weeks liom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. I \ That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' THE ACTIN G CHIEF JUST THE HON'BLE Witness MARCH TWO ENTH DAY OF THURSD AY, THE THIRTE /ffRUE COPY// on this TY FIVE JOY PAUL, ICE SU aNo lNo rWEt't THOUS SDIP. PADMANAB HA REDDY EPUTY REG SECTION OFFIC ER To ecretariat Buildings' M Hvd The Proj bad. State 1 . The Princlpa I Secretary, Tribal Welfare Depadment; of Telan ect Officer, ITDA, (TW) ITDA, gana. rachalam, Kh ammam District Bhad , O/o. ITDA Bhad rach alam, Kh amm . Jayasa Eturunag aram nluPallY, aster, Asram High Schoo U 3 The DePutY Director 4. The Prol ect Officer, 5 The Head Asram High School' Chiruthapally-2' Venkatapuramu District 6. The Head Master' Mandal, Khammam District Asram Hig lvlaster, 7 The Head EP PRADE SRI S. One CC to BI OR SERV GPF Two CCs to Hvd erabad lourl CD Co ples 10. Two Pedom Ad ll, High vocate [O Court for h School, KUMAR, upalPallY Mandal, nkar Bh Charla ICES. edisileru, Khammam Distri ct. PUC] the State of Telangana, at am District. District Khammam PSK. BS s d I I HIGH COURT DATED:1310312025 ORDER WP.No.42665 of 2017 1re ST",,{ o^ /. j J o- '.4. * 2 5 APB 2825 I .h 4 * 06,sPr.lTctlc0 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6lo'," W