IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH':: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE y ■tji '■^1 \il PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8114 OF 2025 Between: 1. Katta Naga Subramanyam, S/o. Narasimhulu. aged 38 years, Occ: Technical Assistant, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Paluru Sandeep Kumar, S/o. Nagaraju, aged 29 years, Occ; Non- PH Worker, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Mahadevapuram Ummar Basha, S/o. Nadipi Khaja Hussain, aged 33 years, Occ; Computer Operator, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. Radha Maddi Reddy, W/o. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, aged 44 years, Occ; Non-PH Workers, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. Midde Santhi Ramesh, S/o. Jayaramaiah, aged 36 years, Occ; Computer Operator, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. Shaik Mabhasha, S/o. Mali Basha, aged 31 years, Occ; Computer Operator, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District Andhra Pradesh. 7. Kummitha Jayanth Kumar, S/o. Late Venkata Subramanyam, aged 31 years, Occ; Computer Operator, Office of Municipality Nandyal Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. 8. Chakali Ramasubbaiah, S/o. Chinna Ramudu, aged 32 years, Occ; Computer Operator, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District Andhra Pradesh. 9. Bannuru Indrani, W/o. Hema Sundara Reddy, aged 36 years, Occ; Computer Operator, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. Kalvatala Surendra Babu, S/o. Krishnudu, aged 34 years, Occ; Non- PH Worker, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. Gujjapoena Pavan Mahendra, S/o. Chiranjeevi, aged 33 years, Occ: Computer Operator, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. Shekireddy Manikanteswara Reddy, S/o. Late Raja Shekhar Reddy, aged 33 years, Occ: Computer Operator, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. 40. 11. 12. 13. Chinthala Venkatasubbaiah, S/o. Subbarayudu, aged 35 years, Occ: Non-PH Worker, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. 14. Chakali Surendra, S/o. Subbarayudu, aged 33 years, Occ: Computer Operator, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh. N. Hymavathi, W/o. Ramanjaneyulu, aged 31 years, Occ: Non-PH Worker, Office of Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District Andhra Pradesh. 15. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, , Government of Andhra Pradesh, Office at Sri Krishna Enclave, Annapurna Nagar, Inner Ring Road, Gorantia, Guntur, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Nandyal Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Commissioner. ...Respondents 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 a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of minimum time scale as per the orders in G.O.Ms. No. 243 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G1) Department dated 06.11.2015 as well as per the orders of the Apex Court and the orders of the division bench of this Honourable Court as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to Article 14 of the Constitution of India consequentiall y direct the respondents to extend the benefit of minimum time scale in favour of the petitioners on par with similarly situated employees by extend the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 243 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G1) Department dated 06.11.2015 forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 extend the benefit of minimum time scale in favour of the petitioners on par with similarly situated employees by extend the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 243 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (G1) Department dated 06.11.2015 forthwith by considering the representation dt.11-03-2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. A VARALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI G LAXMINARAYANA SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION The Court made the following order: APHC010156102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8114/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER{S) Katta Naga Subramanyam and Others AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1.AVARALAKSHM1 Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 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 a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of minimum time scale as per the orders in G.O.Ms.No.243 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G1) Department dated 06.11.2015 as well as per the orders of the Apex Court and the orders of the division bench of this Honourable Court as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to Article 14 of the Constitution of India consequentially direct the respondents to extend the benefit of time scale in favour of the petitioners on par with similarly situated employees by extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.243 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G1) Department dated 06.11.2015 forthwith and pass such order or orders....” Heard Ms A.Varalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri G.Laxminarayana, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5. minimum 2. All the petitioners were appointed with respondents in various posts i.e.. Technical Assistant, Non-PH Workers and Computer Operators, under the control of 5*^ respondent, and have been discharging their duties. All their appointments were on contract basis and are being continued and extended from time to time. The petitioners claim that they are discharging same duties on par with regular employees and were denied of pay scale attached to those posts. 3. 4. Ms A.Varalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are so entitled on the principle of equal pay for equal work, which has been duly recognized by Hon’ble the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. 3 Jagjit Singh ^ with respect to temporary employees as well, including contractual employees. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in P. Khadar Basha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh^, to contend that the petitioners are entitled to grant of annual increments as part of the time scale. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submits that the petitioners are working as contract workers with 5*'^ respondent. They will be paid wages from availability of the Muncipality general fund only on the financial status of the Municipality as per the resolution. They are not the regular employees, even though they are discharging same duties. 6. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The petitioners claim is denied by the respondents on the ground that they are only contract employees and would be entitled to wages only and not the minimum of the pay scale or any increments, which is available only to the regular employees. 8. 9. The point for consideration is, if the petitioners i.e., the contract employees are entitled to the payment of the minimum of pay scale attached (2017) 1 see 148 -2017(6) ALD 638 4 to their respective posts, at par the regular employees on such posts including the annual increments and whether they are discharging the same duties as are being discharged by the regular employees on respective posts. 10. The point in issue is no more res Integra. In Jagjit Singh (supra), 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 11. 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. 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 reproduced below:- Article 7 The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment ofJust 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 pav for equal work; (li) 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’, 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 ‘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 ivas also accepted that same is of 6 during the course of their empioyment, 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 lA/as 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 aii 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.” In view of the law aforesaid, the temporary employees are entitled to 12. draw wages on the minimum of pay scale at a lowest 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. In view of Jagjit Singh (supra), the sole factor which now requires 13. determination is whether the petitioners are rendering similar duties and responsibilities as are being discharged by regular employees holding the same or corresponding post. 7 14. It is admitted by the respondents that the petitioners are working as contract workers with 5‘^ respondent and they are discharging the same duties as of regular employees. The instructions dated 26.03.2025 received by learned Standing Counsel confirms that petitioners have been working with 5'*^ respondent in different capacities on contract basis. They are being engaged through Agency/Contractor after calling for tenders, and those who quote lesser rates for being engaged, and as such petitioners are continued being the lowest. The next point is, if the petitioners are entitled for minimum of pay scale, with increments as revised from time to time. 15. 16. In P. Khadar Basha, S/o. Masthan Khan and four others vs. State of A.P and others^ a Division Bench of this Court held that the scale of pay, i" 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 minimum pay scale, without being entitled to all other allowances to which regular employees are entitled. 17. It is apt to reproduce paras 7 to 12 of P. Khadar Bash (supra) as under; ..7. The learned senior counsel has also drawn our attention to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Government of Andhra 2017 LawSuit (Hyd) 445 8 Pradesh and others Vs. S.Nageswara Rao and others , wherein this Court allowed a similar claim made by NMRs/temporary employees of certain municipalities. In this context, it is apt to extract the observations of the Division Bench below;- There is no dispute that all of them were given regular scale of pay and also conferred the benefit of revised pay scales as and when new scales were implemented in the State of Andhra Pradesh. After giving regular scale of pay and also granting annual grade increments for some time, various Municipalities and Municipal Corporations stopped releasing increments and giving revised scales of pay, necessitating adjudication of the same by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The respondents are casual/NMR/temporary Class-IV employees, who do similar work and discharge similar functions as any regular Class-IV employees. The principle of equal pay for equal work would bar the State or its agents from denying annual grade increments and revised scale of pay to the respondents. We are, therefore, not impressed with the argument that the grant of annual grade increments or grant of revised pay scales to the respondents would contravene the provisions of the A.P.Act 2 of 1994. 8. In our view, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed by them based on the above-mentioned precedents. Even otherwise also, going by the definition of time scale of pay in Ruling-31 (a) of Rule-9 of the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules, the petitioners are entitled to payment of increments. This Rule reads as under: Time scale of pay means pay which subject to any condition prescribed in these rules, rises by periodical increments from a minimum to maximum. It indicates the class of pay hirtherto known as progressive. 9. The above-extracted definition of time scale of pay leaves us in no doubt that the scale of pay has to change with the change of times by addition of periodical increments. Otherwise the expression time scale would have no meaning at all. 10. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that as the petitioners have been extended the minimum time scale, they are entitled to addition of increments from time to time in the minimum time scale without being entitled to all other allowances which a regular employee is entitled. 11. The learned Government Pleader for Services (Andhra Pradesh) submitted that the Court may consider limiting the grant of annual grade increments to the petitioners to a reasonable past period as, the relief of payment of arrears, if granted from the time of extension of the •i:pinimum time scale to the petitioners, would cause huge burden on the exchequer. 9 12. Though in strict sense, the petitioners are entitled to all the arrears, keeping in view the fact that they have approached the Tribunal only in the year 2013 and also the public interest, we restrict the said benefit only from the date of filing of the said O.A. by the petitioners. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The respondents shall revise the minimum time scale of pay of the petitioners by adding the annual grade increments and when they fell due from time to time.” It is further apt to reproduce paragraph 8 of the Government of Andhra i as 18. Pradesh and others vs. S. Nageswara Rao and others'* as under: “8. After referring to Ranc/h/r Singh v. Union of india, (1982) 1 SCC 618 ; AIR 1982 SC 879, Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637, Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief C.P.W.D., (1986) 1 SCC 639 ; AIR 1986 SC 584, R.D. Gupta v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn., (1987) 4 SCC 505 : AIR 1987 SC 2086, U.P. Income tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 658 : AIR 1988 SC 517, State of U.P.-v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121 AIR 1989 SC 19, and Bhagwan Sahai Carpender v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 299 : AIR 1989 SC 1215, their Lordships observed that the State is obliged to make casual employees the same payment as the regular employees are getting because the emphasis in the decisions of the Court is upon the feature that equal pay for equal work is a Constitutional goal to our socialist polity. The Supreme Court in direction (1) gave a clear direction to sanction annual grade increments to casual employees in the establishment.” In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners are 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. Government 19. The submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader with respect to the extent of establishment pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.57 dated 13.02.2019 and G.Ms.No.70 dated 29.02.2020, shall have no effect on the applicability of the principle of equal pay for equal work to the case of contractual employees, as the law declared by the Hon’ble the Apex Court. 20. '2012(1)ALD 26 (DB) 10 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 posts in Municipalities. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- U.SRI DEV! assistant^.REGISTRAR N OFFICER //TRUE COPY// SE To 1. The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of AP, Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Principal Secretary Finance and Planning Department, State of AP, Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration Government of Andhra Pradesh, Office at Sri Krishna Enclave, Annapurna Nagar, Inner Ring Road, Gorantia, Guntur, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality, Nandyal, Nandyal District Andhra Pradesh. 6. One CC to M/s. A Varalakshmi Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri G Laxminarayana, SC for Municipal Corporation [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:27/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.8114 of 2025 * 01 MAY 2025 Current Secwon^ <2: ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS