Back
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Government of Andhra Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
SK. Nooruddin – Respondent
ORDER :
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
Challenge in this Writ Petition at the instance of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh is to the order dated 31.05.2017 in O.A.No.889 of 2013 passed by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein and directing the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein to sanction and pay minimum of scale of pay i.e., Basic Pay + D.A. without any other allowances attached to the regular post similar to the cadre of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein as per revised pay-scales allowing from time to time in terms of G.O.Ms.No.79 I & CAD (Ser.V.2) Department, dated 22.05.2009 and G.O.Rt.No.575 I & CAD (Ser.V.1) Department, dated 15.05.2012.
2. The factual matrix of this case is thus :
The main legal point established in the judgment is that temporary employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale attached to the post without any increments or allowances, based on the princ....
Temporary employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale attached to the post, without any increments or allowances, as per the judgments of the Supreme Court.
The principle of equal pay for equal work mandates that employees performing similar duties must receive the same remuneration, regardless of their employment status.
Part-time employees are entitled to minimum pay but not to increments or allowances equal to regular staff due to lack of compliance with formal employment rules.
Contractual employees are entitled to minimum time scale pay with annual grade increments at par with regular employees.
The principle of equal pay for equal work mandates that employees performing identical duties must receive the same remuneration, regardless of their employment status.
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies to temporary employees, but claims for minimum pay must be explicitly made in the writ petitions.
The court ruled that the failure to include petitioners in the Screening Committee due to administrative delay violated their rights to equal pay under Article 39(d) of the Constitution.
The court affirmed that denying equal pay to similarly situated casual labourers violates constitutional rights, emphasizing the need for timely administrative action.
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
