THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.25998 of 2017

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, as per the writ affidavit, is that petitioner was initially appointed as “Carrobar” (Bill Collector) on 20.08.1988 on a fixed monthly honorarium of Rs.40, following a Resolution passed by the Grama Panchayat due to the urgent requirementfor manpower to collect house tax and engage in village development work. His remuneration was subsequently revised periodically, with the current salary standing at Rs.2000 per month. The Government Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated April 22, 1994, stipulating that all daily wage or consolidated pay workers who were in service as on 25.11.1993, and who had completed five continuous years of service by that date, were to have their services regularized. By this criterion, the petitioner claims full eligibility, having already served more than five years by the cutoff date. It is further stated that his eligibility was formally recognized and recommended by administrative officials, specifically, the Extension Officer (Panchayat Raj), Miryalaguda, forwarded a proposal for his regularization via Letter No.45/94 dated 02.11.1994. This proposal was subsequently supported by the 4th respondent through Letter No.A1/1934/94 dated 04.11.1994. Acting on these recommendations, the 3rd respondent issued Proceedings No.B1/4769/94/Pts., dated 11.11.1994, granting the petitioner regular time scale of Rs.1375–2375 with immediate effect.However, despite the issuance of these proceedings, the petitioner’s services were never regularized under the G.O.Ms.No.212 for "reasons best known to the authorities."

1.1 He made several representations but there was no action by the respondent authorities. He continues to work in the same role, discharging similar responsibilities as those of a regular employee. He invokes the legal doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” and relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. (2016), where it was held that temporary, contractual, or ad- hoc workers performing duties equivalent to regular employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post. Based on this precedent, petitioner asserts that, even pending regularization, he is entitled to receive at least the minimum wages attached to the post of Bill Collector. The current salary of Rs.2000 per month is grossly inadequate in the prevailing economic conditions.

2. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.3-District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda District, opposing the petitioner’s prayer for regularization of service. It is contended that the petitioner failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria under GOMs.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, and that he was appointed as Bill Collector on 20.08.1988 not by the competent authority but by the Sarpanch of Kesavapuram Gram Panchayat, and according to GOMs.No.174, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, dated 21.03.1988, the respondent No.3 alone is the competent authority to appoint Bill Collectors.

2.1 It is contended that the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.212 must comply strictly with procedural norms, and that Sri P.V. Dange, the then District Panchayat Officer, acted beyond his authority by issuing proceedings No. B1/4769/94/Pts on 11.11.1994, regularizing the petitioner’s services based on a proposal from the Extension Officer (Panchayats), Miryalaguda, and that this action was done without proper verification, without recommendation from the Divisional Panchayat Officer, and in clear violation of the rules laid down in the government orders. It is also contended that the irregularity was identified by the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Nalgonda, who issued Memo No. B1/5184/94/Pts on 20.12.1994. This Memo ordered the cancellation of regularization orders for 255 individuals, including the petitioner, whose appointments were deemed illegal. Furthermore, the memo explicitly directed all Extension Of