THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.1045 of 2007 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) The respondents in O.A.No.8593 of 2005 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, filed the present writ petition, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, dated 19-12-2005. The said O.A. was filed by the respondent herein seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to enhance daily wages as fixed by the District Collector, Medak District, from time to time, for extracting regular work on par with regular employees and for all consequential benefits. When the matter came up for hearing before the Tribunal, it was represented by both sides that the matter is squarely covered by the previous order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.11076 of 2002, dated 11-12- 2002. The said fact was verified and when it was confirmed by both sides, the Tribunal had followed the said earlier order and disposed of the present O.A. on identical lines given in O.A.No.11076 of 2002. The operative portion of the order in O.A.No.11076 of 2002 reads as follows:- “The respondents are thus directed to pay wages to the applicant at Rs.102/- per day w.e.f. June, 2002. This exercise shall be completed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For the earlier period if the applicant was not paid wages as per the minimum wages notified from time to time, the respondents are directed to work out the wages to which she is entitled to as per the Minimum Wages Act and if she is entitled for any arrears, such arrears are also to be paid at the said rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. O.A. is accordingly allowed.” The same order passed in the present O.A. is questioned in this writ petition. We have heard the learned Government Pleader, who submits that though the order of appointment dated 30-12-1986, records as if the respondent is appointed on daily wages, the work for which he was appointed is to carry out sweeping and watering in Primary Health Centre. The said work, for which he was appointed, is only a part-time and therefore, he cannot be treated as full-time employee. He also submits that the decision of the Tribunal, which was relied upon and followed by the Tribunal in the present case, is not applicable to the case on hand. We are, however, unable to accept the said contention in view of the specific averment in the appointment order of the respondent, at more than one place, where it shows that the respondent was appointed on daily wage basis not exceeding Rs.200/- per month. Even, in 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the appointment order also, it is recorded that his appointment was purely on daily wage system. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the said appointment has to be treated as part-time appointment contrary to what is mentioned in the appointment order. Further, the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.11076 of 2002 referred to above was not only followed in the present O.A. but also in another O.A.No.2119 of 2005, dated 24-11-2005. The said latter O.A. was the subject matter of W.P.No.6085 of 2006 before this court and this court by order, dated 28-03-2006, dismissed the said writ petition confirming the said order. In other words, the order made by the Tribunal in O.A.No.11076 of 2002 recorded in O.A.No.2119 of 2005 stood confirmed by this court. The present impugned order is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.11076 of 2002. Consequently, this writ is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 13-11-2009 Prv