APHC010127582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7157/2025 Between: G Koteswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY R 2. GP FOR SERVICES I 2 HCGR,J W.P.No.7157 of 2025 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the action of the Respondents in not extending the minimum time scale of pay to the Petitioner on par with other NMR employees who are drawing minimum time scale of pay under the principles of Equal Pay for Equal work illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to extend the minimum time scale of pay to the Petitioner on par with other NMR employees who are drawing minimum time scale of pay and pass such order or orders.…” 2. Heard Sri B.Sesi Bushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent No.1 and Sri R.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Watchman on 15.10.1996 on daily wage basis, under the control of 3rd respondent, and has been discharging his duties. From time to time, orders have been issued for enhancement of daily wages to NMR employees. The petitioner claims that he is discharging same duties on par with regular employees and was denied of pay scale attached to that post. 4. Sri B.Sesi Bushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is also entitled on the principle of equal pay for equal work, which has been duly recognized by Hon’ble the 3 HCGR,J W.P.No.7157 of 2025 Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh1 with respect to temporary employees as well, including contractual employees. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in P. Khadar Basha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2, to contend that the petitioner is entitled to grant of annual increments as part of the time scale. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent No.1 placed on record written instructions dated 01.04.2025, inter alia stating that petitioner has been working as Watchman since 15.10.1996 and paid remuneration, in accordance with Standard Schedule (SS) rates, which are revised periodically, presently for the year 2023-2024 is paid at 560. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued order dated 17.01.2022, to extend minimum time scale of pay under Revised Pay Scale of 2015 for all Full-Time/NMR/Daily wage etc., employees appointed prior to 25.11.1993, inasmuch as petitioner was appointed later is not entitled for said benefit. However, petitioner representation has been forwarded by respondent No.3 to competent authority on 21.11.2024, as he is eligible, which is pending. 7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 1 (2017) 1 SCC 148 2 2017 (6) ALD 638 4 HCGR,J W.P.No.7157 of 2025 8. The point for consideration is, if the petitioner i.e., the contract employee/NMR employee is entitled to the payment of the minimum of pay scale attached to his post, at par with the regular employees on such posts including the annual increments and whether he is discharging the same duties as is being discharged by the regular employees on respective posts. 9. The point in issue is no more res integra. 10. In Jagjit Singh (supra-1), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that the principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable to temporary employees as well. It is apt to reproduce paras 56, 57, 58, 59 and 61 as under: “56. We shall now deal with the claim of temporary employees before this Court. 57. 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 (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. 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. 5 HCGR,J W.P.No.7157 of 2025 Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. 59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below:- Article 7 The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular: (a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with: (i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work; (ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant; (b) Safe and healthy working conditions; (c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence; (d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.” India is a signatory to the above covenant, having ratified the same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape from the above obligation, in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee – whether engaged on regular or temporary basis. 60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟, 6 HCGR,J W.P.No.7157 of 2025 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 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. 61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay- scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post.” 11. In view of the law aforesaid, the temporary employees are entitled to draw wages on the minimum of pay scale at a lowest 7 HCGR,J W.P.No.7157 of 2025 grade, in the regular pay scale extended to the regular employees holding the same post. The ‘temporary employees’ are daily wage employees, adhoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like. 12. In view of Jagjit Singh (supra-1), the sole factor which now requires determination is whether the petitioner is rendering similar duties and responsibilities as are being discharged by regular employees holding the same or corresponding post. 13. It is admitted by the respondents that the petitioner is working under the administrative control of 3rd respondent and he is discharging the same duties as of regular employees and even his case has been recommended to competent authority. 14. The next point is, if the petitioner is entitled for minimum of pay scale, with increments as revised from time to time. 15. In P. Khadar Basha’s case (supra-2), a Division Bench of this Court held that the scale of pay, in Rule 31 (a) of Rule 9 of A.P. Fundamental Rules means pay which, subject to any condition prescribed in those rules, rises by periodical increments from a minimum to maximum. The scale of pay has to change with the change of time by addition of periodical increments and once the minimum pay scale is extended to the temporary employees they are also entitled to addition of increments from time to time in the 8 HCGR,J W.P.No.7157 of 2025 minimum pay scale, without being entitled to all other allowances to which regular employees are entitled. 16. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner is held entitled to the minimum of pay scale of pay, which on addition of the annual increments changes from time to time, at par with regular employees on respective corresponding posts. 17. Therefore, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to grant minimum of pay scale with annual grade increments from time to time to the petitioners at par with the regular employees discharging the duties corresponding to their respective post with 3rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 04.04.2025 KBN 9 HCGR,J W.P.No.7157 of 2025 259 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7157/2025 Date: 04.04.2025 KBN