Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1126
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
N R Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
Dist Panchayat Officer - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 44335 of 2017
Decided On : 02-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D Bala Kishan Rao
For the Respondent: GP For Panchayat Raj and Rural Dev TG
Temporary employees performing similar duties as regular employees are entitled to wages at par with the minimum pay scale, irrespective of their appointment status.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 39(d) - Principle of equal pay for equal work - Petitioners appointed on consolidated basis seek minimum pay scale - Court emphasizes that temporary employees performing similar duties as regular employees are entitled to the same pay scale. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 10)
(B) Court finds prior regularization is not a prerequisite for enforcing equal pay, highlighting equal treatment irrespective of appointment mode. (Paras 6, 10)
(C) Services of petitioners, engaged for up to 33 years, must be regarded for minimum pay scale. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners served in various capacities since the late 1980s on consolidated wages without regularization despite fulfilling qualifications. They argued for pay parity based on long service and similarity in duties with regular employees. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioners have a right to the minimum time scale of pay and directed their regularization based on established equal pay principles. (Paras 11)
Issues: Whether petitioners are entitled to the minimum time scale of pay and if their rejection based on irregular appointments is sustainable. (Paras 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a claim for minimum pay cannot be dependent on the nature of initial engagement and established rights, citing precedents that reinforce equal pay, thus rejecting the opposing arguments as arbitrary and unsustainable. (Paras 6, 10)
Result: Writ Petition is allowed with directives for regularization and payment. (Para 11)
ORDER :
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings dated 21.02.2018 issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda as arbitrary. Consequently, a direction is sought to set aside the same and hold petitioners entitled for granting minimum time scale of pay attached to their respective posts with consequential and attendant benefits including absorption / regularisation of their services in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , [(2006) 4 SCC 1] .
2. The case of petitioners is that they were appointed in their respective posts in the combined Nalgonda District based on Gram Panchayat Resolutions with effect from 15-12-1984, 14-06-1983, 01-05-1988, 06-10-1988, 01-04-1988, 28-05-1988, 19-09-1988, 02-08-1987, 01-10-1988, 01-06-1988, 19-09-1988, 19-04-1988 and 12-07-1988 respectively, and all these appointments were made on consolidated basis. Petitioners have been serving continuously for more than 29 to 33 years in their respective posts, however, they are still being continued on consolidated pay with meagre wages without being extended the benefit of minimum time scale of pay.
2.1 It is stated, all the petitioners possess the requisite qualifications to hold the posts they are working in and over the decades, they gained substantial experience in their posts. Earlier, the Government had taken a policy decision to ratify appointments made by the Sarpanch during the period 06-02-1981 to 31-05-1982, as a consequence, several persons who were appointed during the said period were absorbed. Further, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 239, dated 08-08-2011, ratifying the appointments made by the then Sarpanch for the period 06-02-1981 to 31-05-1982. Since petitioners were appointed later to the aforesaid period, their services were not ratified, and they were continued on consolidated pay. Despite making several representations to the authorities requesting absorption on a regular basis, no action has been taken. They have not been granted even the minimum time scale of pay attached to their posts, despite performing duties identical to their regular counterparts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh , 2017 (1) SCC 148 categorically held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” applies to temporary employees, including daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, casual employees, contractual employees and others, thereby vesting in them the right to claim wages on par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees. Petitioners state that being qualified and eligible to hold their respective posts, they are entitled to minimum time scale of pay in terms of the said judgment.
2.2. Petitioners further submit that in similar set of facts, considering the judgment in Jagjit Singh’s case, this Court directed respondents to examine whether petitioners therein were discharging the same duties and responsibilities and whether they were qualified to hold the regular post and if both parameters were satisfied, to grant them minimum time scale of pay. The Court also directed that the said exercise be completed within four weeks. The petitioners submit that their case is similar and they are seeking similar reliefs.
2.3. Apart from the above, petitioners also place reliance on G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated 22-04-1994 and G.O.(P) No. 112, dated 23-08-1997, wherein directions were issued to regularize the services of full-time/part-time employees who had completed 5 or 10 years of service. Petitioners state that having completed more than 29 to 33 years of service, they are squarely entitled for absorption and regularization of their services in terms of the said policy decisions and also in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s Case and other judgments, which recognized the rights of employees similarly situated. Yet, despite these clear directions and policies, the respondents are continuin
