Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 589
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HARINATH N., J.
N. Lakshmana Rao and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8760 of 2010
Decided On : 30-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: E. Sambasiva Pratap.
For the Respondent: T. Balaji.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that without proper documentation of employment, claims for regularization and equal pay cannot be sustained.
Headnote:
Employment - Regularization - The court discussed the principles of regularization and equal pay for equal work, emphasizing the need for proper documentation of employment and the distinction between different types of employment contracts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employed in the Prasadam Section of a temple, sought regularization and parity in pay with other employees, claiming seniority and previous benefits extended to similar workers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were engaged on a commission basis without proper documentation of their initial employment, which distinguished their case from others who were regularized.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization and equal pay based on their claims of seniority and previous benefits extended to other employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of engagement of the petitioners was distinct from those who were regularized, and without proper documentation, their claims could not be upheld.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
1. The 1st petitioner was working in the Prasadam Section from the year 1987, the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 were working in Prasadam Section from the year 1990, the 5th petitioner was working from the year 1991 onwards, the petitioners 6, 7, 8 and 10 were working from the year 1996 and the 9th petitioner was working from the year 1993. All the petitioners were working in the Prasadam Section of the respondent/temple. The petitioners are seeking extension of similar benefit as was extended to some of the other employees in accordance with Rc. No. A1/2157/1997, dated 15.10.1999.
2. The contract employees of the respondent/temple filed W.P. No. 13450, 13592 of 1991 and W.P. No. 25740 of 1998 seeking regularization of their services, when there was a proposal to disengage them. The writ petitions were allowed directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners therein for grant of regular pay scale and to treat the petitioners therein as regular NMR workers right from the day of their initial engagement without reference to their subsequent engagement from the year 1991 as Contract Labour.
3. The petitioners claim that they are Seniors to the other employees who filed W.P. No. 13450, 13592 of 1991 and W.P. No. 25740 of 1998. The petitioners also filed W.P. No. 13268 of 2010 and this Court vide orders dated 24.07.2000 disposed off the writ petition by directing the respondents to extend similar benefit as was extended to the petitioners in W.P. No. 13450 of 1991 and batch.
4. The petitioners made representation to the respondents for regularization of their services. The respondents passed orders dated 05.09.2000 and the services of the petitioners were regularized on consolidated amount of Rs.1500/- per month. The consolidated pay of Rs.1500/- was extended to Rs.3850/- per month in July, 2008. The respondents paid the enhanced consolidated pay till December, 2009. Thereafter, the 1st respondent stopped paying the amounts to the petitioners.
5. The petitioners received notice dated 10.02.2010 calling for explanation as to why the enhanced wages ought not to be cancelled. The petitioners submitted their explanation, however, the 1st respondent cancelled the enhanced consolidated pay and engaged the petitioners on commission basis. The petitioners are challenging such engagement issued vide proceedings dated 10.02.2010.
6. The respondents in their counter submit that the petitioners are working on commission basis and were initially paid Rs.0.10 ps per packet of Prasadam and on request of the workers the Devastanam has enhanced the commission from Rs.0.10 ps to Rs. 0.15 ps per packet. It is submitted that the petitioners were engaged on commission basis and as such they cannot claim parity with the petitioners who filed W.P. No. 13450 of 1991 and batch. It is also submitted that this Court in W.P. No. 13628 of 2008 filed by the petitioners disposed the writ petition at the admission stage. It is submitted that had the respondents had been granted an opportunity in submitting the relevant facts this Court would have also considered the stand point of the respondents at the time of considering the petition on merits. It is submitted that on the representation of the petitioners that they are similarly placed as the contract employees who filed W.P. No. 13450 of 1991 and batch, the Executive Officer issued erroneous proceedings dated 05.09.2000 extending consolidated pay of Rs.1500/- per month. It is also submitted that the said proceedings required approval of the 2nd respondent. The subsequent enhancement of consolidated pay was also without approval of the 2nd respondent and the consolidated pay was paid from and out of the commission.
7. The respondents in their additional affidavit submit that the service of the petitioners cannot be regularized as the Government prohibited recruitment of administrative staff in Hindu religious and Endowment Institutions by GORt. No. 1997, dated 18.10.2005.
8. It is also submitted that
