THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION Nos.45132 and 45384 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order.

2) In both the writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in holding that the petitioners are not eligible for protection of their pay scales which they were drawing prior to regularization of their services.

3) Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.

4) The case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that after due consideration of qualifications, eligibility and suitability of the petitioners, they were engaged as NMR employees during the year 1990-1993 respectively in the respondent department. Subsequently, taking into consideration their long length of continuous services as well as technical qualifications, respondent No.1 has extended the benefit of minimum time scale of pay attached to the post of Work Inspectors to the petitioners and others vide G.O.Rt.No.1475, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (E-II.A) Dept., dated 27.10.2007. Thereafter, based on the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioners were also extended annual grade increments from the date of granting minimum time scales, vide G.O.Rt.No.468, PR & RD (PR.II) Dept., dated 23.07.2015, and they were also extended the benefit of pay revisions from time to time along with Government Servants. Subsequent thereto, services of the petitioners and others were regularized by respondent No.1 duly following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 Thereafter, on clarification sought by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 21.11.2022 has clarified that the petitioners are not entitled for protection of pay. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the event of regularization of services of the petitioners in a prospective manner, the pay which is being drawn by the petitioners prior to regularization cannot be reduced in any manner and the pay should be protected. Further, the pay of the petitioners prior to their regularization was revised from time to time in furtherance of judicial pronouncements. Learned counsel by placing reliance on Rule 22-B(i) of Fundamental Rules has contended that the

respondents cannot fix the pay lesser than the pay scale which was being paid to the petitioners prior to their regularization and therefore the action of the respondents is illegal and irrational. Learned counsel has further contended that prior to regularization, based on several judicial pronouncements, the respondents have extended the benefit of periodical increments to the petitioners and therefore the action of the respondents in reducing the pay of the petitioners is bad in law and unsustainable in the eye of the law. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2022. Reliance has been placed on:

1) Order dated 15.06.2015 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2855 of 2012 & batch as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7537 of 2016, dated 10.03.2016;

2) Order dated 22.11.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6229 of 2020;

3) P.Khader Basha and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 (5) ALD 570 (AP)

6) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has contended that the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted as per FR 22(a) as the services of NMRs(MTS) employees whose services do not come under the purview of Fundamental Rules and whose services are regularized and appointed against the sanctioned

posts are not eligible for protection of pay in appointed post, from the cat