IMPORTANT POINT
Temporary employees performing similar duties to regular employees are entitled to equal pay and regularization under constitutional provisions.

ORDER :

(K. Manmadha Rao, J.) :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

“to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to call for the records vide letter Rc No.16394/P.O (Balyam) dated 19.06.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional and it amounts to violative of Articles 14, 16, 21, 39(d) of the Constitution of India, contrary to principles of natural justice and set aside the same, direct the respondents to regularizing the services of the petitioners in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar, 2015(8) SCC 265 the petitioners are falling within exception carved out in Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1 with all consequential benefits in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 5176 with interest in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders…….”

2. The precise case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Balwadi Aayas and working under Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and assigned to promote adult education and non formal education (drop out) and educate 3 to 5 years children. The respondent authorities are utilizing their services in elections, senses work etc., organized by the corporation apart from prescribed duties. The respondent authorities have not been paid any additional remuneration for allotting other than actual duties. The petitioners are eligible and qualified to hold the posts of Balayam Aayas, but the respondents did not take steps to regularize their services, inspite of several requests and also not paying the salary attached to the post is contrary to the Hon’ble Apex Court judgments. Hence, inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition and requested to allow the same.

3. Heard Mr. P. Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contents urged in the writ affidavit and requested to allow the writ petition. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed to allow the writ petition and in support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and Others”, (2010) 4 SCC 728 and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the petitioners are working for the corporation since long time with a hope to get their employment permanent. The respondents issued G.O.Ms.No. 542, dated 31.08.2009 sanctioning minimum time scale to 310 employees working in the different categories i.e NMR/ contract workers etc., but ignoring services of the petitioners, it amounts to violation of articles, 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the Government had issued G.O.Rt.No.333, dated 07.03.2011 enhancing the remuneration of the contract/ out sourcing employee working in Municipalities and Corporations to Rs. 6,700/- and the Municipal Standing Committee had approved and passed resolution No. 547 of 2011, dated 09.11.2011 that as per G.O.Rt.No.333, dated 07.03.2011 Balayam Teachers should be paid maximum of Rs. 6,700/- and Aayas should be paid Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore, the petitioners are eligible and entitled for regularization with all consequential benefits.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, 2017(1) SCC 148. Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed various aspects considered by the various Hon’ble Courts and held as follows:

“42.2. The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant is in a “different department” vis-à-vis the referenc