IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.35010 of 1998 Between: 1 Md. Khaja Moinuddin, s/o Abdul Sattar, Nagarkurnool, Gram Panchayat, Mahaboobnagar Dist. 2 A. Anand Sharma, S/o Krishnaiah Sharma, Nagarkurnool, Gram Panchayat, Mahaboobnagar Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Executive Officer, Nagarkurnool Gram Panchayat, Mahaboobnagar dist., 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar dist., .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Grampanchayat in not allowing the minimum time scale of pay of bill collector to the petitioners from the date of completion of 5 years of qualifying service as daily waged /NMR employees as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional being violative of Art. 14, 16, & 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent- Grampanchayat to allow the minimum time scale of pay of Bill Collector to the petitioners with all attendant benefits with arrears from the date of completion of 5 years of qualifying service. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.BHASKARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent-Gramapanchayat in not allowing them the minimum time scale of pay of the Bill Collector with all attendant benefits from the date of completion of five years of qualifying service, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. According to the petitioners, they were appointed as Bill Collectors by the Nagarkurnool Gramapanchayat, Mahabubnagar District-1st respondent on daily wages in the years 1983 and 1985 respectively, and since then they are continuing as such. However, their services are neither regularized nor are they being allowed the minimum time scale of pay of the Bill Collector. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in allowing them the minimum time scale of the Bill Collector, they filed this writ petition. 3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar District-2nd respondent admitting the appointment of the petitioners as Bill Collectors in the years 1983 and 1985 respectively by the 1st respondent-Gramapanchayat on daily wages and contended that the petitioners filed O.A.No.1636 of 1992 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking regularization of their services and the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A., by order dated 25.07.1994, directing the petitioners to submit applications before the competent authority for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212 F & P (FWPC III) Dept. dated 22.04.1994, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and also directing the respondents to examine and verify their cases for regularization as per the said G.O., if it is applicable to them, on receipt of their applications. Though the petitioners submitted their applications on 24.08.1999 i.e. after lapse of five years, their cases have been examined in terms of G.O.M.S.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and they were intimated by letter No.A2/1889/1992, dated 16.10.1999 that there were no sanctioned posts of Bill Collectors in the Gramapanchayat and hence their applications are rejected. It is further contended that neither of the respondents is competent to accord time scale of pay to the petitioners, their appointment was not made by the competent authority, and they were not appointed against any sanctioned post by following the procedure. Therefore, the question of payment of wages on par with the regular employees does not arise. The Writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard both the learned counsel. 5. The subject matter in this writ petition is no more res integra. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi[1] the Supreme Court has taken a view that in cases of this nature whether there are vacancies or not, the persons like the petitioners shall be paid regular salaries by fixing the time scale. It may be apt to refer to para 46 of the said judgment, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under: “In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that are being paid to regular employees be paid to those daily wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in Government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that Courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularization or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A.No.3595- 3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.” 6. In the present case, the petitioners were appointed as Bill Collectors by the 1st respondent-Gramapanchayat in the years 1983 and 1985 respectively and they have put in a continuous service of more than 20 years and hence, in my considered view, the authorities should have paid them the minimum time scale, in the light of the view taken by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to put the petitioners on minimum time scale of pay from the date of filing of the writ petition. However, as and when permanent vacancies of Bill Collector or any other posts equivalent to that post arise, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to compete for the regular recruitment, by way of regular process of selection, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment, and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the department for a significant period of time. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 27th July, 2009 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.35010 of 1998 (Allowed-NC) 27th July, 2009 CBS [1] 2006 (109) FLR 826