APHC010487322024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.26090/2024 Between: A. SREENIVASULU, S/O. A.C.VENKATAPATHI, WORKING AS ATTENDER IN KADAPA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. 11-3-217, KOTA STREET, BADVEL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MA & UD DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, PRIME HILL CREST, NEAR DGP OFFICE, VADDESWARAM, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR. 3. KADAPA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying arrears to me while only granting minimum time scale even though remaining employees were paid arrears along with time scale as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay arrears to me at par with 2 the employees in WP No. 37564 of 2013 without any further delay in the interests of justice. IA No.1 OF 2024 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 pay arrears to me in terms of WP No.37564 of 2013 pending the Writ Petition in this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: DHARANI KUMAR B Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For Municipal Corporation in Rayalaseema Region 2. GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following 3 ORDER: The petitioner was initially engaged as a contract employee under the Chemmumiyapeta Gram Panchayat, which was subsequently merged into Kadapa Municipal Corporation. Following the merger, the petitioner‟s services were continued under the 3rd respondent – Corporation. 2. Seeking the benefit of a minimum timescale of pay, the petitioner previously approached the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad by filing O.A. No.7087 of 2010. 3. On 01.08.2013, the Tribunal disposed of the said Original Application directing the respondents to sanction the minimum timescale of pay attached to the petitioner‟s post within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 4. Aggrieved by the Tribunal‟s order, the 3rd respondent – Corporation filed a Writ Petition No.37553 of 2013 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. This Writ Petition was subsequently dismissed on 10.07.2023. 5. Challenging the dismissal, the 3rd respondent - Corporation preferred Special Leave Petition (C) No.26780 of 2023 before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 23.07.2024. Following this, the 3rd respondent – Corporation passed a resolution on 04.10.2024 to release the petitioner‟s arrears. However, they restricted the pay from the date of dismissal of W.P. No.37553 of 4 2013 (i.e., 10.07.2023) for the period the petitioner was not in service. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have implemented similar orders in identical cases specifically of one in Gonepati Pala Kondaiah in W.P. No.6848 of 2024, dated 26.03.2024, and in case of Kadapa Municipal Corporation, YSR District v. K. Nagaraju and others in W.P. No.37564 of 2013, dated 17.04.2018. These orders were passed on the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Jagjit Singh and others1. The petitioner‟s counsel submitted that restricting the petitioner‟s arrears to the date of Writ Petition‟s dismissal amounts to hostile discrimination among the employees of the same category of the 3rd respondent – Corporation. 7. Learned counsel further argued that there are no restrictive directions in the final orders. The date of the Tribunal‟s order must be taken as the effective date. Since the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. No.7087 of 2010 on 01.08.2013, the petitioner is entitled to the minimum timescale of arrears starting from 01.08.2013; the respondents cannot unilaterally restrict this to the date of the minimum timescale of pay to the date of dismissal of the Writ Petition. Therefore, learned counsel prayed for the release of arrears covering the period from 01.08.2013 to 10.07.2023. 1 AIR 2016 (SC) 5176 5 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent – Corporation filed counter-affidavit. He submitted that this Court has directed the respondents to pay wages equal to the salary of the lowest grade of employees with effect from the date of the Tribunal‟s order (01.08.2013). He stated that the respondents have already paid a total amount of Rs.1,17,419/- to the petitioner from the calculated date of dismissal order in W.P. No.37553 of 2013. 9. This Court has carefully perused the respondents counter on record. It is found that the respondents have implemented identical orders of this Court in W.P. Nos.37564 of 2013 and 6848 of 2024. Since the respondents have already agreed/accepted the principle and released a portion of the amount, after dismissal of their Writ Petition, they cannot legally withhold the remaining amount. 10. This Court relies on the principle enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh‟s case (supra); wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while dealing with equal pay for equal work, held as follows at Para Nos.54 and 57: “54. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ has also been extended to temporary employees 6 (differently described as work- charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. ................ ................ 57. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at 7 some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay- scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post”. 11. The petitioner is legally entitled to these benefits for the work extracted by the 3rd respondent – Corporation. This Court relies on the principle enunciated in Para Nos.54 and 57 of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh‟s case (supra), regarding equal pay for equal work. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances and the case law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh‟s case (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following directions: 8 (i) The respondents are directed to sanction and fix the minimum timescale of pay attached to the post of the petitioner, starting from the date of the order in O.A. No.7087 of 2010 (i.e., 01.08.2013) till dismissal of W.P. No.37553 of 2013 i.e., 10.07.2023; (ii) The respondents shall calculate and release the remaining balance arrears of the minimum timescale from 01.08.2013 up to the date from which payments have already been made under W.P. No.37553 of 2013; and (iii) This entire exercise shall be completed and the amounts be disbursed to the petitioner, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, with the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:15.06.2026 DSH Whether the order is: Speaking √ Reasoned Reportable Non-Reportable √