THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.16816 OF 2003 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The case of the petitioner as stated in the writ affidavit is that he was appointed as Watchman on 18.9.1986 in Wesley Boys’ Junior College, Secunderabad, which is an aided institution. His services were confirmed with effect from 18.9.1988 and thereafter he was transferred to Wesley Boys’ Degree college, Secunderabad with effect from 4.1.1989 and since then, he has been working in the said college. The further case of the petitioner is that since the date of his appointment, he was admitted to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and regularly he is subscribing the amount. During 1992-93, the management of the respondent – college prepared a list of Class IV Staff working in the Wesley Boys’ Degree, Junior and High School, respectively for the purpose of recommending their cases for admitting into grant-in-aid and in the said list, the petitioner is at serial no.4. and two Watchmen posts were admitting into grant-in-aid with effect from 1.4.1992. The grievance of the petitioner is that his case was not considered and that he was given assurance that his case would be considered in future and though his juniors were absorbed into grant-in-aid posts, his case was not considered and further though he requested for giving time scale, the same has not been given to him. The further case of the petitioner is that he is working as watchman doing day and night duties alternatively. While he was doing night duty, he attended to his duty till 18th of June, 2003 and signed in the attendance register as usual, which is kept in the custody of the 1st respondent – Principal. But on 29-6-2003 (Sunday), he had to leave all of a sudden for Sangareddy, as his daughter-in-law was to undergo an operation. Hence, he asked his son to inform the same in the office of the 1st respondent for sanction of leave on 29th and 30th of June, 2003 and accordingly his son informed and asked for sanction of leave for two days. But after his return, when he reported for duty on 1.7.2003 at 8-00 am, the 1st respondent and the office staff did not allow him to sign the attendance register. The 1st respondent issued show cause notice in Lr.No.180/AU/3/2003 dated 3-7- 2003 calling upon the petitioner to explain. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 5.7.2003 denying the vague allegations made in the show cause notice. The 1st respondent issued another show cause notice in Lr.No.189/A4/4/2003 dated 14.7.2003, asking the petitioner to once again give explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation. The 1st respondent issued another proceedings in Lr.No.195/A4/5/03 dated 25.7.2003 stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not submissive and the 1st respondent forced the petitioner to accept the alleged dereliction of duty. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent neither suspended him, nor allowing him to duties. Aggrieved by the same, and not admitting him into grant-in-aid post, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. In the counter, it is admitted that the petitioner was appointed as Watchman and that his services were confirmed on 18.9.1988 and that he was being paid consolidated pay of Rs.3,650/- per month. The petitioner attended the interview conducted by the Board of Governors on 25.10.1994, but he was not selected. It is stated that the petitioner is in the habit of remaining absent from his duties without obtaining leave and to this effect, he was given memo dated 5.5.2003, to which he did not give any explanation or reply. The petitioner did not attend duties on 27th, 28th, 29th and 30th of June, 2003, nor has obtained permission to remain absent and that without the permission of the authorities, he stealthily signed the attendance register on 27th and 28th of June, 2003. When the show cause notice dated 3.7.2003 was issued, he stopped attending duties. In spite of categorically statement by the respondent no.1 in his letter dated 14.7.2003, addressed to the petitioner that he was not suspended, the petitioner did not resume to duty and hence he was marked absent since 27th June, 2003 till 2nd September, 2003. It is further stated that the entire college is not aided and only one section in B.Com is aided and if any aided posts are sanctioned, the same will be given as per the seniority. With these averments and stating that the petitioner was not at all suspended, writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 4. The respondents filed additional counter affidavit and stated inter alia that it is false that the petitioner was not allowed to work. On the contrary, he was just absenting himself from duties without any reason or intimation and permission. His own letters dated 4.8.2005, 7.6.2008 and copies of the attendance register filed along with the counter, establish the fact of his absence from his duties. In this regard memos issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner which are dated 29.3.2005, 15.7.2005, 6.3.2006, 7.9.2006 and 15.9.2006 are enclosed to the counter affidavit. In the further counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner never attended his duties from 15.10.2008 and that it is false to state that he collapsed while on duty in November, 2008. Even after meeting with the management of the college on 11.12.2008, the petitioner has not given in writing stating that he is unable to attend duties and desires to resign the job and, therefore, his entitlements may be settled. Without the letter of the petitioner determining his services with the respondent, no claim of services dues can be settled as per law and, therefore, no calculations are made with respect to his service dues such as EPF etc. With these averments the writ petition is sought to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as watchman and his services were confirmed and though the petitioner is not admitted into grant- in-aid, he is entitled for the scales on par with regular employees, because, the services discharged are one and the same. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in KARNATAKA STATE PRIVATE COLLEGE STOP-GAP LECTGUERS ASSN. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA[1]. He further submitted that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, still his terminal benefits are not settled. Therefore, he sought for a direction to the respondents to given the pay scale to the petitioner, which he is entitled to as per law and in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court and settle his terminal benefits. He further reiterated the averments made in the writ affidavit. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavits, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. From the above material available on record, the undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as watchman in the respondent – college on 18.9.1986 and his services were confirmed with effect from 18.10.1988. The relevant portion of the confirmation order dated 18.10.1988, is extracted as under for better appreciation: “This is to inform you that your services are confirmed with effect from 18th September, 1988, since you have completed two years of satisfactory work.” 8. Therefore, it is clear that the services of the petitioner were confirmed with effect from 18.10.1988. But the grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given pay scales, which was extended to regular employees, though he was discharging the duties on par with them. Further, from the material available on record, it could be seen that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 and in the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent - management it is stated that since 15.10.2008, the petitioner never attended to duty. Though there are proceedings calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he was absent without any permission or unauthorizedly, on certain dates, the respondent – management, has categorically stated that they never suspended the petitioner. Therefore, it could be seen that the petitioner has served in the respondent – institution, as admitted by the respondent – management, for about more than two decades. 9. The Apex Court in the decision reported in KARNATAKA STATE PRIVATE COLLEGE STOP-GAP LECTURERS ASSN. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (1 supra) held as under: “An appointment may be temporary or permanent but the nature of work being same and the temporary appointment may be due to exigency of service, non- availability of permanent vacancy or as stopgap arrangement till the regular selection is completed, yet there can be no justification for paying a teacher, so appointed, a fixed salary by adopting a different method of payment than a regular teacher. Fixation of such emoluments is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.” 10. From the above judgment of the Apex Court it is clear that adopting a different method of payment to a temporary employee, from that of regular employee, is arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since the nature of the work being discharged by both of them, is same. 11. In the present case, as already noted above, the grievance of the petitioner is that though he was confirmed with effect from 18.10.1988, he was not extended the regular scale. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was given the consolidated pay of Rs.3,650/-. The petitioner also alleged that his juniors were taken into grant-in-aid posts, but he was denied the said benefit. However, in the counter it is stated that the petitioner was not selected by the Board of Governors though he faced the interview. This court is not inclined to enter into the said controversy, which include disputed questions of fact, but with regard to scale of pay, this court, cannot appreciate the action of the respondent – management, in not extending the pay scale applicable to the post, held by the petitioner. 12. In the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that since 15.10.2008, the petitioner is not attending to his duties and as the petitioner has not tendered his resignation, the clam of the petitioner could not be settled as per law and no calculations are made with respect to his service dues such as EPF etc. On the other hand case the case of the petitioner is that he collapsed during the month of November, 2008 while in service and he could not attend to duties and however, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and hence, he may be paid the terminal benefits, by extending the scale of pay, as per law. 13. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: “The petitioner shall submit a detailed representation of his claim, which he is entitled to as per law, to the respondents, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within a period of one month thereafter, the respondents 1 and 2, considering the length of service of the petitioner and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment referred to above, shall pass an appropriate order settling the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner and also to the 3rd respondent.” 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. AVS ------------------------------- 08—03—2011 [1] (1992)2 SCC 29