IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the applicability of minimum time scale provisions to outsourcing employees based on precedent, despite the appellants' objections.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) :

1. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants and Sri Y. Surya Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The Writ Appeal No.778 of 2024 has been filed by the appellants (the respondents in the Writ Petition No.3628 of 2021), challenging the interim order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition.

3. The interim order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3628 of 2021 reads as under:-

“Learned counsel for the respondents sought time on the ground that they want to engage a Senior Advocate in the present case. That is not a ground to reject interim order.

This Court has already granted interim direction in W.P.No.18846 of 2018 dated 11.06.2018 by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others [(2017) 1 SCC 148] directed the respondents therein to apply the minimum time scale to the employee therein. Hence, there shall be a direction to the respondents herein to apply/pay the minimum time scale.”

4. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Counter Affidavit was already filed in the Writ Petition, but time was granted to file Counter Affidavit. The same was not taken into consideration.

5. He further submits that the impugned interim order has been passed based on an interim order dated 11.06.2018 passed in W.P.No.18846 of 2018, which was granted following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others [(2017) 1 SCC 148], but in W.P.No.18846 of 2018 an application for vacation of stay had already been filed, which is still pending. Consequently, based on that interim order, the present impugned interim order could not be passed.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra) shall not apply to the facts of the present case, in which the writ petitioners are the outsourcing employees. He submits that considering Jagjit Singh (supra) G.O.Ms.No.142, dt.27.08.2018 was issued, but not for the outsourcing employees. He submits that in W.A.No.552 of 2021, which was filed against the final order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25343 of 2021, dated 16.04.2021 with respect to the outsourcing employees, the Division Bench of this Court vide interim order, has provided only for payment of the minimum wages.

7. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that in the Writ Petition the appellants have already filed application for vacation of the interim order with additional counter affidavit, and the same is pending, but The writ petitioners, for the alleged disobedience of the impugned interim order, have filed contempt petitions which are listed.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents Sri Y. Surya Prasad submits that the controversy is still pending in the main Writ Petition. Only interim order has been passed. The appellants have already filed counter affidavit and the additional Counter Affidavit along with the application for vacation of interim order. He further submits that Jagjit Singh (supra) shall apply to the employees of the present case as well, being covered in ‘temporary employees’ as in para 60 of Jagjit Singh (supra). The writ petitioners are entitled for grant of minimum time scale. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the order in W.A.No.552 of 2021 is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

9. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that i) The writ appellants were represented through counsel and they sought adjournment on the ground which was found not satisfactory. They could have brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that Counter Affidavit had already been filed and ought to have advanced the arguments; ii) Mere pendency of application for vacation of interim order in W.P.No.18846 of 2018 cannot be a ground to challenge the impug