JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned GP for Services – IV, appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2, and Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:

“...to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not protecting pay scales of the petitioner which were drawing prior to regularization of their services is illegal arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to protect the pay scales of the petitioner which were drawn prior to regularization of their services as held by the Hon’ble AP Administrative Tribunal in OA No.2855/2012 and Batch dt. 15.6.2005 as confirmed by this Hon’ble Court in WP No.7537/2016 dt. 10.3.2016 if necessary by setting aside the orders issued in G.O.Rt. No. 438, MA, dt. 30.6.2008 and consequent orders of the 3rd and 4th respondents issued vide L. Dis. No.12026/10/2018/M2, dt. 14.7.2019 and Roc. No. 2372/2019/C1, dt. 20.3.2019 respectively only to the extent of in not protecting pay scales of the petitioners drawn prior to regularization of their service and pass such other order or orders….”

3. The action of the respondents in regularizing the petitioners’ services but without protection of their pay at the time of regularization is being challenged to the extent of not protecting the pay, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.

4. Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed during the years 1980, 1984, 1985 and 1988 onwards on daily wage basis in the 4th respondent Corporation, namely, the Chittoor Municipal Corporation, Chittoor, Chittoor District. They approached the then Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) by filing RP.No.20634 to 20646 of 1989 for regularization of their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1320, MA, dated 15.12.1981, in which the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the regularization of the petitioners’ cases in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.1320. The 3rd respondent- Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration, Gorantla, Guntur District, vide Circular No.42344/87, M2, dated 03.03.1989 provided for grant of the minimum time scale pending regularization. Thereafter, vide L.Dis.No.14160/99-M2, dated 05.07.1989, issued by the 3rd respondent, periodical increments were also released to the petitioners. They were being extended minimum time scale in the year 1989 along with increments, pending regularization of their services. The services of the petitioners were regularized by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.438, MA & UD Department, dated 30.06.2019 prospectively from the date of issue of orders but the pay drawn by the petitioners prior to regularization of their services was not protected. Consequently, their pay has been refixed in the minimum time scale at the initial stage i.e. Rs.13,000-40,270 and thereby, their salary has been considerably reduced to their detriment causing much financial hardship. The orders dated 14.07.2019 and 20.03.2019 are the consequential orders issued by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on regularization of their services, pay could not be reduced and even if regularization was prospectively made, the pay the petitioners were receiving at the time of regularization should have been protected.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some other workers working in the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Telangana State raising the same grievance had approached the A.P. Administr