THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

ORDER:

The case of the petitioners, precisely, as per the writ affidavit, is that they are rendering services as Sweepers in various Police Stations in Nalgonda District, for more than two decades; and several petitioners have also been issued certificates by the in-charge officials certifying that they are working for six hours a day and in some cases they are working full-time, and even part-time workers are working for four hours. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they are living hand-to- mouth as meager amounts are paid in wages. They rely on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh1, and request for granting of time scale attached to Last Grade Post, with all usual allowances, on par with regular employees in Last Grade Service, by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, from the date of their initial appointment. Petitioners also rely on the orders passed in W.P.No.26265 of 2017 in support of their case.

2. Heard Mr. Balamukund Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel on record for the petitioners;

1 (2017) 11 SCC 148

and learned Government Pleader for Home (Services). Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, and submits that the petitioners are part-time sweepers and part-time contingent workers, working in various Police Stations, at different places in Nalgonda District; through contractual agreements from Outsourcing/contract agencies; and that the wages paid to the petitioners are meager, and not sufficient to meet the needs of daily life, and the petitioners are working for decades and therefore they are entitled to minimum pay scales attached to Last Grade Service.

4. Learned Government Pleader, while opposing the writ petition, would contend that in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) the petitioners/workmen therein were even deputed against the works carried out by the regular employees, and therefore the case is distinguishable. It is further contended that in Union of India vs. Ilmo Devi, (2021) 20 SCC 290, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by referring to State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal3, held at paragraph 12 of the judgment that if certain employees are regularized under a

3 (2011) 2 SCC 429

Scheme, the later incumbents cannot claim similar dispensation of regularization by seeking extension of the period of the scheme so as to make the scheme applicable to them as well. Learned counsel therefore contends that the petitioners herein are temporary workers, working about 4 to 6 hours of the day, and they cannot claim parity of pay scales with the regular employees who are full time employees of the government; and therefore there is no merit in the writ petition.

5. At the outset, it is to be noted that this Court in similar case in W.P.No.26265 of 2017, passed interim orders dated

08.08.2017, directing as follows:

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioners who submits that this Court in similar circumstances passed interim order on 25.07.2017 in WP.MP.No.27846 of 2017 in W.P.No.22620 of 2017 and the same is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services.

In view of the above, having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (2017) 11 SCC 148, the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners, on the basis of the principle ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same/corresponding posts within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”

6. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the factum of the petitioners rendering services as part-time Sweepers in various Police Stations is not in dispute, and it is the specific contention that they are working for over two decades now; and their wages are not commensurate to meet the daily expend