APHC010400342024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 20523/2024 Between: 1. M CHAITANYA KUMAR, S/O. GOWRI SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. PRESENTLY WORKING AS MAHANYASA RUDRA PARAYANADAR, SRI BRAMARAMBHA MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY VARLA DEVASTHANAM, SRISAILAM, NANDYAL DISTRICT, AP. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, , ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, AP. 3. SRI BHRAMARAMBA MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY VARLA DEVASTHANAM, , SRISAILAM, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NANDYAL DISTRICT, AP. ...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 topleased to issue an order or direction, more 2 particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus. Declaring the order of the 2nd Respondent vide Proc.in.Rc.No.C1/13025(34)73/2024 dated 01.05.2024, where-under the request of the petitioner for grant of time scale with allowances attached to the post of Mahanyasa Rudra Parayanadar/ Rudra Parayana Pandit was rejected, as illegal, improper, arbitrary, suffers from non-application of mind and discriminative and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent authorities to pay time scale along with allowances attached to the post of Mahanyasa Rudra Parayanadar/ Rudra Parayana Pandit on par with the other employees who were granted time scale with allowances in the 3rd respondent temple, in the interest of justice, and pass 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 pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to re- consider the request of the petitioner for grant of time scale along with allowances attached to the post of Mahanyasa Rudra Parayanadar/ Rudra Parayana Pandit as done in the case of other employees of the 3rd respondent temple, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition No.20523 of 2024 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION) 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.20523 of 2024 O R DE R: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 01.05.2024, whereunder the request of Petitioner for grant of time scale with allowances attached to the post of Mahanyasa Rudra Parayanadar/Rudra Parayanada Pandit was rejected as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under: Petitioner had passed Samskrutha Bharathi Pradhama in the year 2006, Veerasaiva Pravesha exam in the year 2007 and Vara and Pravara in Veerasaiva Agama exam in the year 2012- 2013 respectively. The Commissioner of Endowments had fixed cadre strength in Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Vaarla Devasthanam and in the posts, one post of Maha Rudrayagam- cum-Rudra Parayana Pandit was sanctioned vide circular in Rc.No.B1/19555/2011 dated 08.06.2011. 3. The Executive Officer of Respondent No.3-Devasthanam, having found the Petitioner fully qualified and eligible, appointed 4 the Petitioner to perform daily sevas in Veerasaiva Agama Sampradayam i.e. Mahanyasa Parayanam, Rudra Parayanam and Mahanyasa Poorvaka Rudrabhishekam on daily wage of Rs.350/- vide Rc.No.A1/5401/2017, dated 24.08.2017 in the sanctioned cadre strength and the same was enhanced to Rs.400/- per day with effect from 01.01.2021 vide proceedings dated 11.01.2021. 4. On the representation of the Petitioner, the Commissioner, Endowments Department vide proceedings dated 07.02.2023 directed the Executive Officer of the 3rd Respondent- Devasthanam to take action for implementation of time scale as per circular instructions dated 12.12.2018 and Government Memo dated 05.12.2018. Pursuant thereto, the Executive Officer issued proceedings dated 25.02.2023 granting minimum basic pay with effect from 07.02.2023 attached to the post of Mahanyasa Rudra Parayanadar/Rudra Parayana Pandit without any allowances such as HRA, DA etc. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner made a representation to Respondent No.1 to consider his case for grant of time scale as was done in the case of similarly placed persons working in different cadres of Respondent No.3-Devasthanam as the Petitioner is working in the post of Maharudra Yagam cum 5 Rudra Parayana Pandit, which is a sanctioned post, on consolidated pay since 2017. 5. As no further action was being taken thereof, Petitioner filed W.P.No.32292 of 2023 and the same was disposed of by order dated 15.12.2023 directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner as to whether Petitioner is entitled to allowances on par with other employees. Pursuant thereto, again the Petitioner submitted a representation for passing appropriate orders. As no further action was taken, the Petitioner filed C.C.No.873 of 2024 and during the pendency of the contempt case, the impugned order dated 01.05.2024 rejecting the claim of the Petitioner was passed. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, it is stated that the post of Maharudra Yagam cum Rudra Parayana Pandit in Respondent No.3-Devasthanam is governed by Service Rules under G.O.Ms.No.261 dated 20.05.2022 and the post can be filled up only by Direct Recruitment. It is also stated that guidelines were issued regarding selection vide circular dated 28.02.2023 and whenever a vacancy arises in the cadre strength 6 of any institution, the concerned Executive Authority shall submit a proposal to the Commissioner seeking to fill up such vacancy. Upon receipt of the same, the Commissioner will examine the essentiality of such proposal and issue appropriate orders. It is also stated that the Government had appointed the Executive Officer to the Respondent No.3-Devasthanam conferring certain additional powers and as per the same, the Executive Officer shall exercise all powers vested in the Commissioner of Endowments. 7. In view of the additional powers, the Executive Officer had appointed the Petitioner as Mahanyasa Rudra Parayanadar on daily wage of Rs.350/- in the establishment of Respondent No.3- Devasthanam in view of the need and necessity after considering the qualification of the Petitioner. The remuneration was subsequently enhanced to minimum basic pay of Rs.25,220/- per month with effect from 07.02.2023 without allowances. Petitioner thereafter sought for extension of benefit of time scale with allowances attached to the post of Rudra Parayanadar and submitted representation and thereafter filed W.P.No.32292 of 2023. It is stated that the Petitioner was appointed temporarily on remunerative basis only to recite Mahanyasa Rudra Parayana in 7 the year 2017 without selection process and that his services were considered as engaged purely on temporary remuneration. It is also stated that there is no post of Mahanyasa Rudra Parayanadar in the cadre strength of Respondent No.3- Devasthanam. It is stated that in the light of rules in existence, the rejection of the representation of the Petitioner vide impugned order is valid and no interference is called for. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by Executive Officer for Respondent No.3, it is stated that the Petitioner has no right to demand for grant of time scale with all allowances which is nothing but regularization of his service. It is stated that the initial appointment of the Petitioner is on a daily remuneration basis which is temporary in nature and without adhering to the selection process. It is stated that Respondent No.2 had issued orders on 07.02.2023 directing to take necessary action for implementation of minimum basic pay (without HRA and DA, CCA etc.,) and in compliance with the instructions, the remuneration of the Petitioner was enhanced to Rs.25,220/- per month. Thereafter, Petitioner again gave representation to extend the benefits of time scale with allowances attached to the post and it is further stated that apart from reiterating the pleadings of Respondent 8 No.2, it was also stated that regularization of the employee is not possible as a policy decision to be taken by the State Government. 9. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that Mahanyasa Parayanadar/Rudra Parayana Pandit is a duly sanctioned post as per the orders of Respondent No.2 dated 08.06.2011 and the Petitioner who has been sincerely discharging his duties cannot be denied the allowances attached to the said post. 10. Learned senior counsel Sri Gangaih Naidu, would contend that the impugned order cannot be sustained as there cannot be any variance in the pay scale of a person discharging regular duties and merely on the ground that his appointment was not through regular selection process. It is also contended that the Executive Officer, having recommended for grant of time scale, could not have residual from his earlier request and disputed the very existence of the post. 11. Heard Sri Gangai Naidu, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-II and learned standing counsel for Respondent No.3-Devasthanam. 9 12. The chief priest of the Respondent No.3-Devasthanam had requested that there is a necessity to perform Mahanyasa Parayanam, Rudra Parayanam and Mahanyasapoorvaka Rudrabhishekam daily during morning services in the sacred temple. In that context, the Petitioner, who possesses proficiency in Veerasiva Agamana and pravesa, pravara and vara examinations, was permitted to perform the rituals during morning on temporary basis with honorarium of Rs.350/- per day since there is a necessity to perform morning rituals. Subsequently, vide proceedings dated 25.02.2023, the Petitioner was sanctioned minimum time scale of Rs.25,220/-. The claim of the Petitioner for minimum time scale attached to the post with allowances was rejected vide impugned order. 13. There cannot be any dispute that a post of Rudra Parayanadar was sanctioned as per circular Rc.No.B1/19555/2011, dated 08.06.2011. Though the nomenclature of the appointment of the Petitioner is slightly different, the Petitioner can be said to be appointed only in that particular post. Though the Petitioner was appointed even on a temporary basis in the year 2017, the minimum time scale 10 attached to the said post should be extended to the Petitioner as the Petitioner is doing the same duties. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Of Punjab And Ors v. Jagjit Singh and others1 at paragraphs 57, 58 and 60 held as under: 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 summarised by us in para 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 summarised by us, in para 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. Anyone, 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 dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of 1 2017 1 SCC 148 11 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. 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 employees concerned (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” summarised by us in para 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 temporary employees concerned 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 summarised by us in para 42 12 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post. 15. As regards allowances, a Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P v J. Ravi and another2 held that the temporary employees are not entitled for annual grade increments and house rent allowance though entitled for minimum time scale. The relevant Paragraphs i.e. 18 to 20 of the Judgment are extracted below: “18. In Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashwani Roy and others, (2017) 3 SCC 436, the Hon‟ble Apex Court referring to Uma Devi‟s (supra) and Jagjit Singh‟s case (supra), reiterated that even if the principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable to temporary employees and the pay in the regular pay scale is admissible to such employees, they would be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale which is attached to the post but without any increments. 19. It is apt to refer paragraphs 15 to 17 of Ram Naresh‟s case (supra) as under: “15. At this stage, reference is made to the aforesaid judgment in the case of Jagjit Singh‟s case (supra) for the purpose that even if principle of 'equal pay for 2 2023 APHC 24016 13 equal work' is applicable and the pay in the regular pay scale is admissible to such employees, these employees would be entitled to minimum of the regular pay- scale and not the increments. This case is taken note of and discussed in Jagjit Singh‟s case (supra) in the following manner: “36. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], decided by a five-Judge Constitution Bench: Needless to mention, that the main proposition canvassed in the instant judgment, pertained to regularization of government servants, based on the employees having rendered long years of service, as temporary, contractual, casual, daily- wage or on ad-hoc basis. It is, however relevant to mention, that the Constitution Bench did examine the question of wages, which such employees were entitled to draw. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, a reference was made to civil appeal nos. 3595-612 of 1999, wherein, the respondent-employees were temporarily engaged on daily-wages in the Commercial Taxes Department. As they had rendered service for more than 10 years, they claimed permanent employment in the department. They also claimed benefits as were extended to regular employees of their cadre, including wages (equal to their salary and allowances) with effect from the dates from which they were appointed. Even though the administrative tribunal had rejected their claim, by returning a finding, that they had not made out a case for payment of wages, equal to those engaged on 14 regular basis, the High Court held that they were entitled to wages, equal to the salary of regular employees of their cadre, with effect from the date from which they were appointed. The direction issued by the High Court resulted in payment of higher wages retrospectively, for a period of 10 and more years. It would also be relevant to mention, that in passing the above direction, the High Court had relied on the decision rendered by a three-Judge bench of this Court in . The Constitution Bench, having noticed the contentions of the rival parties, on the subject of wages payable to daily-wagers, recorded its conclusions as under:- “55. In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before 15 the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily- wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily- wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that Courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularization or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take 16 immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A. Nos. 3595-3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.” We have extracted the aforesaid paragraph, so as not to make any inference on our own, but to project the determination rendered by the Constitution Bench, as was expressed by the Bench. We have no hesitation in concluding, that the Constitution Bench consciously distinguished the issue of pay parity, from the issue of absorption/regularization in service. It was held, that on the issue of pay parity, the High Court ought to have directed, that the daily-wage workers be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of their cadre. The Constitution Bench expressed the view, that the concept of equality would not be applicable to the issue of absorption/regularization in service. And conversely, on the subject of pay parity, it was unambiguously held, that daily-wage earners should be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade (without any allowances).” 16. Another significant reason for referring to the 17 judgment of Jagjit Singh‟s case (supra) is that the Court culled out the principles of 'equal pay for equal work' from the earlier judgments on the subject and collated them at one place. Further, the Court also drew an important distinction between the grant of benefit of 'equal pay for equal work' to temporary employees on the one hand and the status of regular employees on the other hand. Insofar as parameters of principles of 'equal pay for equal work' deduced by the Court are concerned (para 42), our purpose of deduction stated in sub-para vi thereof is important, which is reproduced below: “(vi) For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected, on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis, cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay scale (see – Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology Vs. Manoj K. Mohanty[2003 5 SCC 188]). ” 17. Insofar as distinction between pay parity and regularization of service is concerned, referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Uma Devi‟s case (supra), the Court made the following observations: “49.1. We are of the considered view, that in paragraph 44 extracted above, the Constitution Bench clearly distinguished the issues of pay parity, and regularization in service. It was held, that on the issue of pay parity, the concept of „equality‟ would be 18 applicable (as had indeed been applied by the Court, in various decisions), but the principle of „equality‟ could not be invoked for absorbing temporary employees in Government service, or for making temporary employees regular/permanent. All the observations made in the above extracted paragraphs, relate to the subject of regularization/permanence, and not, to the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟. As we have already noticed above, the Constitution Bench unambiguously held, that on the issue of pay parity, the High Court ought to have directed, that the daily wage workers be paid wages equal to the salary, at the lowest grade of their cadre. This deficiency was made good, by making such a direction.” Thus, it follows that even if principle of “equal pay for equal work” is applicable, temporary employee shall be entitled to minimum of the pay-scale which is attached to the post, but without any increments.” 20. In view of the aforesaid, the 1st respondent was entitled to minimum of the pay scale which was attached to the post but without any increments or/and allowances”. 16. In view of the above, the Petitioner cannot be entitled for allowances attached to the post. As regards the claim of regularization, the same is not the subject matter of this writ petition as the prayer is only with reference to time scale 19 allowances attached to the post the Petitioner is working. The issue with regard to regularization is left open for the Petitioner to pursue in an independent proceeding. 17. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 08.01.2026 KLP