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 principles of 'equal pay for equal work' as established in relevant case laws.

JUDGMENT:

(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the petitioners and Sri T.V.V. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. The 1st respondent filed O.A No.2673 of 2018 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), seeking to declare that he was entitled for minimum in the time scale of pay plus DA and HRA attached to the post of Pump Mechanic by taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others Vs Jagjit Singh and others, 2016 Law Suit (SC) 1057/2017(1) SCC 148, being in continuous service, as Pump Mechanic under the respondents for more than 25 years since his appointment in the year 1993.

3. Previously some other applicants had filed O.A.No.3859 of 2014, which was disposed of in terms of another O.A.No.9546 of 2011 decided vide order, dated 06.04.2015.

4. The 1st respondent initially filed O.A.No.4201 of 2016 for regularization of services which was dismissed. He also filed O.A.No.723 of 2018 for the relief of direction to the respondents therein to fix and pay the minimum in the time scale of pay at par with the similarly situated employees. The respondents therein filed counter affidavit. However, the applicant of O.A sought permission to withdraw the O.A, as pending consideration of O.A., the Government issued orders extending the benefit of minimum in the time scale of pay to some persons, with permission to file fresh O.A. The O.A.No.723 of 2018 was dismissed as withdrawn.

5. Thereafter, O.A.No.2673 of 2018 was filed.

6. The O.A No.2673 of 2018, was allowed at the stage of admission, vide order dated 13.12.2018, directing the present petitioners to pay minimum in the time scale attached to the post in which the present 1st respondent was working along with D.A., providing further, for payment of arrears for the working period of the 1st respondent.

7. Challenging the order dated 13.12.2018, the present writ petition has been filed.

8. Learned Government Pleader for Services-IV submits that any opportunity to file counter affidavit was not granted and the O.A was allowed at the admission stage itself.

9. The aforesaid submission deserves rejection. The Tribunal decided the O.A after opportunity of hearing to the learned Government Pleader (before the Tribunal) as also hearing him who, as per the order, submitted that the O.A was squarely covered by the decisions in the previously decided other O.A(s).

10. The aforesaid factual aspect, recorded in the order of the Tribunal itself, has not been disputed in the writ petition.

11. Learned Government Pleader for Services-IV next submitted that, in view of Jagjit Singh (supra), in relation to temporary employees, while applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ for grant of minimum time scale, it is required to be considered, if the employee was rendering the duties and responsibilities similar to those being discharged by the regular employees holding the same/corresponding posts, but it was not considered by the Tribunal.

12. There is no dispute on the legal submission advanced, but the same deserves rejection, in as much as, there is nothing on the record of the writ petition to show that the duties and the responsibilities being discharged by the 1st respondent were different from their counter parts holding the same/corresponding posts.

13. Even if, the O.A was decided at the admission stage, the relevant material in this regard could have been brought on the record of the present petition. We find that, even such a plea has not been raised. Basically, it is a plea of fact and in the absence of any averment/pleading, oral submission on factual aspect, cannot be permitted to be raised.

14. Learned Government Pleader lastly submitted that the 1st respondent would not be entitled to allowances or increments, but only to the minimum of the time scale attached to the same/corresponding post. He submitted