THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.27875 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The first respondent, who is statedly working as Pump Operator on NMR temporary basis from 01.08.1990 in Guntur Municipal Corporation-petitioner herein (hereinafter Corporation), filed O.A.No.3034 of 2010 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal). He prayed for a direction to regularise his services and grant the minimum time scale of pay attached to the post of Pump Operator (Last Grade Service) with usual allowances from the date of completion of five years service. He also sought interim relief directing the Corporation to pay the minimum scale of pay. By an order dated 06.05.2010, the learned Tribunal issued interim direction to pay minimum time scale of pay attached to the regular post borne on the last grade service pending regularisation. When the order was not implemented, the first respondent filed contempt case being C.A.No.829 of 2010. The Corporation then moved V.M.A.No.1708 of 2010 for vacating the interim order. After considering the rival contentions, by order dated 30.09.2010, the learned Tribunal made the interim order absolute and granted time to the Corporation to implement the order, failing which the Commissioner was directed to appear on 11.11.2010. Against the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. This Court, while admitting the Writ Petition on 10.11.2010, suspended the order of the Tribunal dated 30.09.2010. The first respondent moved W.V.M.P.No.6080 of 2010. At the interlocutory stage, with the consent of both the counsel, the matter is being disposed of finally. The Standing Counsel for Corporation submits that though various contentions were raised in the counter affidavit, the learned Tribunal did not advert to the same and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission. At the stage of considering the application for vacating the interim order, the issue is whether the first respondent has strong prima facie case and balance of convenience. The Tribunal found that the main point in O.A. stands concluded by earlier order dated 19.04.2010 in I.A.No.1922 of 2008. From this, it can be presumed that the first respondent has prima facie case. Further, indisputably the first respondent filed another O.A. being O.A.No.3034 of 2010 seeking regularisation. It has nothing to do with the grant of minimum scale of pay. The principal of equal pay for equal work is now part of the Indian Constitutional law. When the first respondent is working for more than twenty years as Pump Operator and paying a lesser pay than the one paid to the regular such Pump Operator, it is certainly violative of principle of equal pay for equal work. In that view of the matter, we fail to see any grave error requiring correction by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 17th October 2011 RRB