O R D E R:

Rev.I.A.No. 2 of 2025

Parties are arrayed as they are referred to in the Writ Petition.

2. Writ Petition No. 16689 of 2019 was filed challenging the action of respondents in not granting / releasing periodical increments as well as PRC benefits while extending the said benefit to other NMR time-scale employees on the untenable ground that petitioners have not obtained any favourable orders like other employees. A consequential direction was sought to respondents to forthwith release the annual grade periodical increments as well as PRC benefits to petitioners from the date of payment of minimum time sale like other similarly-situated persons in whose favour government issued G.O.Rt.No. 468, dated 23.07.2015, G.O.Rt.No. 132, dated 28.02.2017, and G.O.Rt.No. 498, dated 18.07.2018. The said Writ Petition, by order dated 10.12.2024, was allowed directing respondents to release periodical increments along with arrears to writ petitioners.

3. Now, respondents in the Writ Petition have taken up I.A.No.2 of 2025 to review the said order on the ground that this Court relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Jagjit Singh¹(2017) 1 SCC 148, held that petitioners are entitled for minimum time scale of pay attached to the post, but failed to take into consideration the law laid down in the same judgment, wherein it was held that temporary / ad hoc employees are not entitled for any allowances, and held that petitioners are entitled for dearness allowance which is error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice. It is stated, the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Putti Lal²(2006) 9 SCC 337 has categorically held that while applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, the employees would only be entitled to minimum of time scale without any allowances. According respondents, as per Rule 31 of the Fundamental Rules, time scale of pay would include minimum and maximum scale of pay and does not include any allowances including dearness allowance and the said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court on account of mistake of counsel, therefore, the order under review granting minimum time scale along with dearness allowances is contrary to Fundamental Rules and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same is liable to be reviewed.

4. Writ Petitioners filed counter to the Review Application stating that the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra) has referred to the judgment in State of U.P. v. Putti Lal; as the law laid down in Uma Devi case has discussed all the parameters of the Daily Wage Employees, part-time employees and contract employees, the Apex Court has finally stated that these employees are eligible for equal pay for equal work. It is further stated, the very same Rule 31(a) of Rule 9 of the Fundamental Rules stipulates that the time scale of pay means pay which subject to any condition prescribed in these rules, rises by periodical increments from a minimum to maximum and it indicates the class of pay hitherto known as progressive. Writ Petitioners also contend that based on the said interpretation, this Court allowed Writ Petition Nos. 26788 of 2017, 25759 of 2013 and when the matter was carried to the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 5250 of 2020, the same was dismissed. Hence, it is contended, the order under Review needs no interference at the hands of this Court.

5. Heard Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of respondents / review petitioners and Smt. K. Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel for writ petitioners.

6. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that temporary / ad hoc employees are not entitled for any allowances, hence, the order under review which granted dearness allowance to writ petitioners is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is argued, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Putti Lal’s case has categorically held that while applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, the employees would onl