HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No. 16462 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri Sapavat Sreenivas, learned Standing Counsel for SC Co-operative Society Limited appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:

“...to issue an order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the Respondent in not adding yearly increments and H.R.A to the petitioners minimum time scale pay as the same is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the Respondents to grant yearly annual grade increments and H.R.A to the petitioner along with minimum time scale with effect from 2019 as per the orders passed in W.P.No.26788 of 2017 reported in 2017 (6) ALD 638 and to pass...”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner was appointed as an NMR (Attendant/Driver) in 1992 with the 4^th respondent society. Despite G.O.Ms.No.193 (1990) and G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 24.12.1994, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the regularization of NMR services, the petitioner’s case was not considered by the respondents. On 21.07.2010, the 1^st respondent granted the minimum time scale to two similarly placed candidates but excluded the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14396 of 2016 seeking the minimum time scale. On 26.10.2021, the respondents granted the minimum time scale attached to the post of Office Subordinate, with eligibility for annual increments but without other service benefits to the petitioner.

4. It is the further the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner, vide detailed representations dated 15.11.2020 and 07.11.2021, requested the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to grant the yearly increments due to the petitioner. However, despite the said representations, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 had not considered the petitioner’s request for the grant of yearly increments and House Rent Allowance (HRA) as on date. Inspite of several requests of the petitioner, the petitioner’s request for grant of minimum time scale pay w.e.f.2019 had not been considered as on date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. PERUSED THE RECORD:

(A). The Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, in State of Punjab and others vs Jagjit Singh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-paras (1)(2)(3), of the said judgment observed as under:

“54 “The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- “(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement.

(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously, with notional breaks, by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having