THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 19556 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pay minimum of time scale applicable to Class IV employees with D.A. and other allowances in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and in view of the orders issued by the first respondent in proceedings dated 08.10.2008, with all consequential benefits holding that the order issued by the first respondent in impugned memo No.11417/lab/2009, dated 12.05.2009 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioners were appointed as casual labours in third respondent office on various dates on regular basis after proper selection by competent authority and they put in more than 20 years of service regularly to the satisfaction of the superiors. But, they are being paid meager wages. They made several representations to the authorities for regularization of their services or to give regular scale of pay. It has been the consistent policy of the State Government to regularize services of employees who are appointed otherwise than on regular basis. G.O.Ms. No.647, dated 14.9.1979 was issued directing regularization of employees even without subjecting them to any test. Several other orders were issued from time to time for regularization of services of daily wages, consolidated employees and temporary employees. In pursuance of the undertaking given to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance, dated 24.4.1994 was issued to regularize services of all types of employees. Petitioners are being paid meager amount of Rs.84/- as daily wages though they are discharging the same duties and performing same functions as that of regular employees. The first respondent issued proceedings dated 08.10.2008 directing payment of minimum of time scale of Class IV employees plus D.A. to casual labourers working in the University. The petitioners made representations to respondents to allow them the same benefit in pursuance of the aforesaid orders issued by the first respondent, but they have not taken any action thereon. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ petition and stating that the petitioners were engaged as seasonal workers to work at Agricultural College Farm under the control of the respondent university. They are being paid @ Rs.147/- per day. They are engaged as per requirement and availability of work for research and seed production subject to availability of work and requirement as the agricultural operations are obviously seasonal. The petitioners are having break of service of more than six months in some periods due to non-availability of work, and some times, they themselves absented from muster whenever required. Though the petitioners were on muster rolls as on 25.11.1993, they are not engaged continuously after 25.11.1993 and they are having break of engagement for six months and more at a stretch at different periods of time and are not available for work continuously. When it is noticed that they have not put in continuous engagement of six months and more at a stretch, they are deemed not to be in the engagement of the respondent no.3 since their reengagement after break of more than six months is against the provision of Act 2 of 1994. The first respondent university adopted the G.O.Ms.No.593 prohibiting engagement of any casual labour temporary worked charged NMR after 25.11.1993. The petitioners deliberately suppressed material fact that they have break of engagement of more than six months at a stretch after 25.11.1993 and so they are not entitled to claim payment of wage as prayed. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are engaged as Contract Labourers since long time and so they are entitled to the pay at minimum in the time scale of Class IV employees, and for that purpose, the respondents issued proceedings dated 08.10.2008 and requested this court to consider the cases of petitioners in terms of the proceedings dated 08.10.2008. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the same contending that the petitioners have not continuously worked for more than six months period at a time, and that as and when there is work, they will be engaged, and for the days of engagement, he/she were paid the minimum wages as prescribed under the Act; that, the proceedings of the respondents dated 08.10.2008 are not applicable to the case of the petitioners since they are not actually working without any break after 25.11.1993, and hence, there are no grounds to issue writ of mandamus. 6. It is contended by the petitioners that though the petitioners are working continuously for more than 20 years, their services have not been regularized and they have not been paid minimum pay attached to the post of Class-IV employee. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioners are engaged as seasonal workers and they have to work in agricultural college farm, and that they were being engaged subject to availability of work whenever required either in research or seed production, and that the agricultural operations are only seasonable one, and that they are engaged as per the availability of work and that all the petitioners are having break up service of more than six months in some of the periods due to non-availability of work, and that because of this, the question of payment of minimum pay in the pay scale attached to Class-IV employee does not arise. It is also the case of the respondents that, the government issued G.O. No.593 prohibiting engagement of casual labourers after 25.11.1993 and the same has been adopted by the first respondent university, and as such, the petitioners cannot be reengaged again in violation of the Act 2 of 1994. 7. The allegations in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents have not been denied or disputed by the petitioners by filing rejoinder or reply affidavit. Though it is stated that the petitioners have been working continuously in respondent university for the last 20 years, it has been seriously disputed by the respondents. Even the counsel for the petitioners relied upon proceedings of the first respondent dated 08.10.2008 wherein it has been decided to accord sanction for payment of minimum of time scale of Class IV Rs.3850 (RPS 2005) + D.A. @ 35.796% to the casual labourers of the university with effect from the date of issue of the order, subject to the terms and conditions inter alia that the minimum of time scale of Class IV shall be applicable to all casual labourer who are on muster rolls as on 25.11.1993 and are continuing till date without any break. Therefore, the proceedings of the university clearly go to show that casual labourers who are muster rolls as on 25.11.1993 and continued thereafter, are only eligible for the pay- scale attached to Class-IV employees. Therefore, when it is not shown that the petitioners are on muster rolls as on 25.11.1993 and continued till the date of issuance of the proceedings, they are not entitled to pay as agreed to be given to the regular contract labourers. The said order has no application to the case of the petitioners since they were not on muster rolls and they are not working continuously till the date of passing of the order. 8. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 27.06.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 19556 of 2009 27.06.2011