HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRI T PETI TI ON No.9116 of 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri Gurram Srinivas, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing

on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioners approached this Court by filing

the present writ petition seeking the prayer as under:

“…..to issue an order or direction more

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents denying the increased pay to the petitioners from time to time on par with their counter parts as per G.O.Rt.No.841, Education (PE.LIB) Department, dt.28-11-2011 and G.O.Ms.No. 33, School Education (Training) Department, dt.24-09-2016, and other G.Os is highly arbitrary, discriminatory violation of article 14, 16 and 21 of our constitution and against the principles of natural justice, equity and un-fair, and prays to direct the respondents to pay the enhanced salary to the petitioners from time to time including arrears as paid to their counter parts as per Government orders issued from November, 2011 onwards to till date and as per the confirmed orders passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of the colleagues of the petitioners, in W.P.No. 19449 of 2016 dt. 08-07-2016, and in W.P. No.

32806 of 2015, dt. 02-02-2017, and impose costs of the case and pass.......”

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners were appointed as part-time sweepers in the District Central Library, Hanmakonda on 28.11.2007. However, the petitioners were directed to work six hours daily (from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.). The petitioners designation was changed from part-time workers to full- time contingent workers vide proceedings Rc.No.47-A2/08 dated 29.10.2010. Despite working full-time, the petitioners have been continuously paid only Rs.1,500 per month, which is even less than part-time wages, whereas similarly situated employees in other districts are receiving Rs.12,000–Rs.18,000 per month. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) The relevant portion of the Division Bench Order of this Court dated 08.07.2016 passed in W.P.No.19449 of 2016 is extracted hereunder:

“The petitioners were unable to convince the Tribunal to accept this stand, and, in our view rightly. If a person is engaged contrary to a statutory provision or executive instructions, he may not be entitled to be continued, but when the State has chosen to continue him, it lies ill in its mouth to say that they can choose to violate the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Such a stand would amount to making the alleged illegal appointees to survive with half starved stomachs. In a welfare State, such an approach is abhorrent. So long as the private respondents are continued as part-time Attenders/ Helpers, irrespective of their nature of appointment, they are still expected to be paid the statutory minimum wages, lest, the State and its functionaries are exposed to penal consequences for violation of the mandatory provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 with impunity.

In the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. For driving the private respondents to the needless litigation, the petitioners are saddled with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) payable to each of the private respondents.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.23858 of 2016 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.”

B) The relevant portion of the Division Bench Order of this Court dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P.No.32806 of 2015 is extracted hereunder:

“Though the learned Government Pleader would contend that the Tribunal ought to have recorded further reasons for granting relief, we find no merit in this contention. Once it is accepted that both the O.As were filed by similarly situated persons seeki