Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Janapareddy Surya Narayana – Appellant
Versus
The Muncipal Administration and Urban Development and Ors – Respondent
Writ Petition No.25434 of 2020
Decided On : 16-04-2021
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service matter – Contract employee – Entitlement of equal pay equal work - Whether services of these petitioners were engaged on outsourcing basis - Whether petitioners are entitled to claim benefit of equal pay for equal work - petitioners case in nutshell is that petitioners were appointed as Teachers working under Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in their respective posts - Main duties of petitioners are to promote adult education and non-formal education and educate children particularly in slum areas according allotted areas to individual petitioners teachers/supervisors respectively - Respondent authorities are using petitioners services as and when necessary for election census enumeration of ration cards verification of eligible persons to extend welfare scheme benefits to individual and not particular prescribed duties apart from their regular duty as teacher/supervisors –
Finding of the Court:
When act of the State is arbitrary and exploiting the situation of unemployment by paying meagre amount as salary, engaging the services of these petitioners on outsourcing basis, such act can be described as discriminatory and arbitrary and the Court can exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and declare such action as discriminative and arbitrary - Therefore, by following the principle laid down by the Apex Court in State of and others court find that it is a fit case to issue a direction to the respondents to extend minimum time scale of pay to the petitioners who are discharging their duties for eight hours in a day on par with regular employees of the same cadre. Accordingly point is decided partly in favour of the petitioners - One of the contentions of the petitioners is that, the memo impugned is illegal and arbitrary - As discussed above, the petitioners are entitled for minimum time scale of pay and they are bound to serve during regular office hours of an employee on par with regular employees of the same cadre – Therefore petitioners are to raise such contention while claiming minimum time scale of pay based on their office hours and they cannot approbate and reprobate. Therefore cannot be declared as illegal and arbitrary and not liable to be set-aside when a direction is issued to extend minimum time scale of pay to these petitioners of same cadre of regular employees –
Result: Petition is allowed
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the proceedings RC.No.16394/P.O (Balyam) dated 19.06.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 & 39(d) of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar, 2015 (8) SCC 265, as the petitioners fall within the exception carved out by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and to pay all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioners case in nutshell is that, the petitioners were appointed as Balwadi Teachers, working under Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in their respective posts. The main duties of the petitioners are to promote adult education and non-formal education (drop outs) and educate 3 to 5 years children, particularly in slum areas according allotted areas to individual petitioners/ balyam teachers/supervisors respectively. The respondent authorities are using the petitioners services as and when necessary for election, census, enumeration of ration cards, verification of eligible persons to extend welfare scheme benefits to individual and not particular prescribed duties apart from their regular duty as balyam teacher/supervisors. It is the case that the respondents never paid any additional remuneration for allotting other than actual duties. The petitioners never hesitated to do works allotted by the respondents only with a hope to get their permanent employment.
3. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that, according to Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, Equal pay for equal work shall be extended to temporary employees (differently described as work charged, daily wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual) and they can claim wages on par with minimum pay scale being paid to regularly engaged government employees and by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, the same benefit shall be extended to temporary employees in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh and others (referred supra).
4. It is contended that the petitioners were initially appointed as Balwadi Teachers and sewing teachers on monthly remuneration of Rs.375/-. Subsequently the remuneration was enhanced to Rs.1300/-per month. The petitioners with lot of hope to get permanent employment after some period in the corporation, they have joined for low monthly payment but years passing, they did not get any assurance from the corporation. The petitioners joined the service when they were young and energetic and all the petitioners worked in the corporation with a hope that their services would be regularized by absorbing as permanent employees by the corporation authorities. It is submitted that the petitioners’ services were not regularized till date and the action of the respondents in discriminating the petitioners’ amounts to violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
5. It is submitted that, respondents issued G.O.Ms.No.542 dated 31.08.2009 sanctioning minimum time scale to 310 employees working in different categories i.e. NMR/contract workers of merged village/part time sweepers/bill collector/safaiwalas/care takers/communities health volunteers/ ANMs, ignoring services of the petitioners herein.
6. It is submitted that the petitioners are appointed by the respondents and utilizing the services of the petitioners for all purposes continuously since long time without any further enhancement in remuneration. Similarly, community health volunteers appointed who stand on similar footing and on par with the petitioners have been included in G.O.Ms.No.542 and granted minimum time scales. It is submitted that, non-inclusion and ignoring the names and services of the petitioners in G.O.Ms.No.542 is nothing but discriminating th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
