HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.25633 of 2007, 25987, 27078 & 27079 of 2007, 4037, 4044, 4360, 996, 1225 & 1234 of 2008 and 2096 of 2009 Date : 29.12.2009 Between : B. Ramesh & others. …..Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.25633 of 2007, 25987, 27078 & 27079 of 2007, 4037, 4044, 4360, 996, 1225 & 1234 of 2008 and 2096 of 2009 COMMON ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy) All these writ petitions are filed, aggrieved by the common order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7350 of 2006 and batch, dated 10th September 2007, as such, all the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, we refer to the facts as arise in W.P.No.2096 of 2009, which corresponds to O.A.No.310 of 2007 before the Tribunal. 2. The sole petitioner in W.P.No.2096 of 2009 was the applicant before the Tribunal in O.A.No.310 of 2007, in which, the order, dated 06.11.2006, passed by the 2nd respondent- Commissioner of Intermediate Education, was under challenge. By the aforesaid order, the 2nd respondent has cancelled the consolidated pay of Rs.3,300/-, which was allowed to the petitioner and further ordered for continuance of the petitioner as a Part-time Lab Attender on the pay of Rs.1,000/- per month. In the same order, recovery was also ordered, alleging that the consolidated pay of Rs.3,300/- was allowed to the petitioner irregularly. 3. There was a representation from the General Secretary of Vocational Lab Attenders’ Association to the Government, stating that there were about 300 Lab Attenders working on Part-time basis in various Government Vocational Junior Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and were being paid the consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/-. The Commissioner of Intermediate Education also, vide his letter in Rc.No.B2/1535/2001, dated 4th December 2001, submitted proposals for allowing minimum scale of pay plus D.A. to the Lab Attenders, who were appointed on or before 25.11.1993 in Government Vocational Junior Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Having considered the representation of the General Secretary of the Vocational Lab Attenders’ Association, and also proposals of the Commissioner of Intermediate Education in the letter dated 4th December 2001, the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.69, Higher Education (IE.I.3) Department, dated 03.09.2003, for payment of consolidated amount of Rs.3,300/- to the Lab Attenders (Vocational), who are appointed on or before 25.11.1993, and who have not completed 5 years of service by the aforesaid date. 4. Pursuant to the orders of Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.69, dated 03.09.2003, extending the benefit of consolidated pay of Rs.3,300/- as regular monthly salary, the Vocational Part-Time Lab Attenders’ Association has submitted certain proposals to the Director of Intermediate Education for sanction of minimum scale. The Director of Intermediate Education, based on the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.69, dated 03.09.2003, has issued orders, dated 21st of October 2003 in Rc.No.VOC.II-2/740/2003, extending the benefit of Rs.3,300/- consolidated pay for all the Part-time Lab Attenders working in the Government Vocational Junior Colleges. In the same proceedings, the Principals of the Government Colleges were instructed to follow certain instructions before drawl of such salary. The instructions, which are relevant for the purpose of these writ petitions, were to the effect that the candidate should have passed SSC or ITI, and if any honorary services were rendered by the candidates prior to 25.11.1993, the same will not be considered for computing the total service etc. Petitioner was one of the beneficiaries for extension of the scale and he was extended the scale of pay of Rs.3,300/- per month. 5. When the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Intermediate Education noticed that large number of irregularities have taken place while extending the benefit of the consolidated pay of Rs.3,300/- for Part-time Lab Attenders and that certain irregular appointments were made with the persons, who do not fit into the scheme for regularization, etc., staff of the State Institute of Vocational Education were deputed for verification of records in the State. Based on the verification report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner herein, who was working as a Part- time Lab Attender in MLT, Government Junior College, Parkal, Warangal District, to show cause, as to why the consolidated pay of Rs.3,300/-, which was allowed to him irregularly, be not cancelled, on the ground that he was not in service as on 25.11.1993. After considering the explanation filed by the petitioner, the orders, dated 06.11.2006, were passed by the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, in Rc.No.VOC.I-A- 2/173/2006-4, cancelling the consolidated pay of Rs.3,300/- granted to the petitioner, and ordered for recovery of such amount drawn by the petitioner, by ensuring that the recoverable amount does not exceed 50% of the salary payable to him. 6. The order of cancellation was assailed before the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.310 of 2007, which is considered along with the batch of cases, and by an order, dated 10th September 2007, the A.P. Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the said batch of cases, confirming the orders of cancellation. 7. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Part-time Lab Attender initially in Government Junior College for Girls, Mahabubabad in Warangal District, vide proceedings in Rc.No.SPL/VOC/A/1993, dated 01.11.1993, on a consolidated pay of Rs.650/- per month. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Government Junior College, Govindaraopet, where he was joined on 01.02.1995 and worked as such upto 22.08.2003. When the vocational course was closed in the said college, he was transferred and posted in the 3rd respondent- college with effect from 22.08.2003 and is working as such since then. It is his case that though he is qualified for grant of minimum scale of pay of Rs.3,300/-, without assigning any valid reason, the orders of cancellation were passed. It is also stated in the affidavit that inspite of producing necessary documents before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not considered the same and passed the impugned orders. 8. The 2nd respondent-Commissioner/Director of Intermediate Education has filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter, it is stated that the petitioner was working as a Part-time Lab Attender in MLT at Government Junior College, Govindaraopet, Warangal District since 01.02.1995, taking remuneration from the Government funds. It is further stated that due to non-functioning of vocational course in the said college, he joined in Government Junior College, Parkal, Warangal District on 22nd of August 2003. It is stated that the period stated to have been worked by the petitioner from 01.11.1993 to 31.01.1995 at Government Junior College for Girls, Mahabubabad, Warangal District was without remuneration from the Government funds, cannot be reckoned as qualifying service as per the Rules in force, as there is no evidence of drawl of salary from the Government funds. It is further stated that the engagement of petitioner as a Part-time Attender from 01.02.1995 is contrary to the provisions of A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994. Further, it is stated that the Government orders in G.O.Ms.No.69, dated 03.09.2003, were issued for payment of consolidated pay of Rs.3,300/- to 350 Lab Attenders, who were appointed on or before 25.11.1993, but have not completed five years of service as on the said date. While generally denying the various other allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that as the claim of the petitioner was not fitting into the scheme notified by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.69, dated 03.09.2003, orders were issued canceling the benefit extended earlier. 9. Heard learned Counsel Sri S. Laxma Reddy, Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, Sri K.Narayana, Sri D.Linga Rao and Sri M.Surender Rao, appearing for the petitioners, and also the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, for the respondents. 10. In this batch of cases, it is submitted by Sri S.Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.2096 of 2009 that the petitioner was appointed as a Part-time Lab Attender and worked as such in the Government Junior College, Mahabubabad, Warangal District with effect from 01.11.1993. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in view of petitioner’s appointment in the Government Junior College with effect from 01.11.1993, it cannot be said that he was not in service as on 25.11.1993 for extending the benefit of consolidated pay of Rs.3,300/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel that, in any event, no directions can be given to continue the petitioner on the consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month, which is less than the minimum wages notified under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments reported in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India[1], in Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan[2] and in State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat[3] 11. Further, Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, has submitted that as the petitioners are rendering services on par with the regular employees, the orders, which are passed cancelling the consolidated pay, are in violation of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. 12. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents, that to regulate the appointments and prohibit irregular appointments in the offices and establishments of the State Government, Local Authorities, Corporations owned and controlled by the State Government, and to rationalize the staff pattern and pay-structure, the State of Andhra Pradesh has enacted Act 2 of 1994, titled as ‘The A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994’. It is stated that after the said enactment, the Government has formulated a scheme for regularisation and absorption of employees on consolidated pay, daily wages etc., vide G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, for those, who have worked continuously for a minimum period of five years as on 25.11.1993, subject to certain conditions. It is submitted that as per the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.69, dated 03.09.2003, the benefit of paying the consolidated amount of Rs.3,300/- was extended to only such Part-time Lab Attenders, who were appointed on or before 25.11.1993 and drawing a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month. It is submitted that on verification, in the instant case, it was found that there was no drawl of any amount from the Government funds towards the salary of the petitioner prior to 01.02.1995. It is submitted that as the very extension of consolidated pay of Rs.3,300/- to the petitioner was irregular, the same is rightly cancelled after conducting the inquiry, and after issuing necessary notice. 13. The right of the petitioner for claiming the consolidated pay of Rs.3,300/- per month is only pursuant to the scheme notified by the Government and the orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.69, Higher Education (IE.I-3) Department, dated 03.09.2003. In the aforesaid proceedings, while considering the representation of the General Secretary of the Vocational Lab Attenders’ Association, and also the proposals submitted by the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the Government has ordered for payment of consolidated amount of Rs.3,300/- per month to the Lab Attenders (Vocational), who were appointed on or before 25.11.1993, but have not completed five years of service on the said date in the sanctioned posts and drawing a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month. Upon comprehensive reading of the aforesaid orders issued by the Government, it is amply clear that to get the benefit of increased consolidated pay, one should have been appointed on or before 25.11.1993, and should have been drawing a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month at that point of time. In this case, though it is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed with effect from 01.11.1993 as a Part-time Lab Attender in Government Junior College for Girls, Mahabubabad, but there is no proof of drawl of his consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month from the Government funds. On verification of records, it was found that the petitioner was drawing consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month, only from 01.02.1995, but not earlier to that. In the proceedings dated 21st of October 2003, issued in Rc.No.VOC.II-2/740/2003, the 2nd respondent has issued specific instructions to the Principals of Government colleges to ensure certain things before drawl of salary. In the said instructions issued, it is clearly stated that the honorary services will not be considered for the purpose of total service rendered prior to 25.11.1993. Instructions also include that drawl of salary as per orders in G.O.Ms.No.69, dated 03.09.2003, will be subject to possessing necessary qualifications. The petitioner also did not place any material before this Court or before the Tribunal, to show that he was drawing a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month pursuant to his appointment with effect from 01.11.1993. In the absence of any such material in proof of drawl of consolidated pay prior to 01.02.1995, the petitioner, who is working as a Part- time Lab Attender, was not eligible for drawl of increased consolidated pay of Rs.3,300/-. In that view of the matter, we do not find any irregularity in the orders of cancellation. 14. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, basing on the judgments referred above, that the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue in service by paying less than the minimum notified wages, but it is to be noted that the issue with regard to payment of minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, was not an issue either before the authorities or before the Tribunal, so as to consider the same in these writ petitions. In any event, the petitioner is a Part-time Lab Attender, who cannot equate himself to a regular Attender, so as to claim any minimum wages. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any factual foundation so as to adjudicate the said issue, which did not arise for consideration before the authority concerned or before the Tribunal, the petitioner cannot seek direction for drawl of the increased consolidated amount on the aforesaid ground, in the present writ petition. 15. Coming to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners, referred above, in the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights (1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service provided by him clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the word ‘forced labour’ under Article 23 of the Constitution of India, and such person would be entitled to come to the Court for enforcement of his fundamental right under Article 23 of the Constitution, by asking the Court to direct for payment of minimum wage to him, so that the labour or service provided by him seizes to be ‘forced labour’ and the breach of Article 23 is remedied. 16. In the case of Sanjit Roy (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act, 1964, has held that the payment of less than the minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to workers employed in Famine Relief work, do constitute violation of rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. In the case of State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat (3 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the claim of wages for prisoners, vis-à-vis, the rights guaranteed under Article 23 of the Constitution of India, and held that prisoners are entitled to equitable wages for the work done by them during their period of imprisonment. 18. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present batch of cases, the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners would not render any assistance in support of their case. 19. Although it is argued that the impugned orders are in violation of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, but the same also cannot be the ground to invalidate the cancellation orders. The only issue before the authorities was whether the applicants were qualified for drawl of consolidated amount as per the scheme notified by the Government, and whether they were fulfilling the educational and other requisite qualifications for drawl of such increased consolidated amount. Having considered the same, and on verification of records, the respondents have found that the petitioner would not fit into the scheme for drawl of increased salary, as such, ordered for cancellation of the benefit extended to him. In any event, the petitioner, being a Part-time employee working in Vocational Colleges, cannot seek equal remuneration on par with regular employees. So far as the part-time employees are concerned, it all depends on the number of hours of work entrusted to them, as such, the plea to apply the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ also cannot be accepted, so as to interfere with the cancellation orders. The Tribunal, in the batch of applications filed by the petitioners, having considered the issue whether the petitioners have complied with all the conditions or not, so as to justify the drawl of increased salaries, has held that no case was made out to interfere in the matter, and therefore, it dismissed the applications filed by them. Even in the present batch of cases, having considered the entire material on record, we are of the view that all the petitioners in these cases were not fitting into the scheme as they were not fulfilling one criteria or the other notified by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.69, dated 03.09.2003 for payment of the consolidated pay of Rs.3,300/- per month. For the aforesaid reasons, and as no other contentions are advanced, we find no merit in this batch of cases, so as to interfere with the orders of the Administrative Tribunal, confirming the orders of cancellation of minimum time scale granted to the petitioners. 20. At the same time, we are of the view that the consolidated pay of Rs.3,300/- was paid to the petitioners pursuant to the orders of Government in G.O.Ms.No.69, dated 03.09.2003. Though the petitioners were not fulfilling the criteria notified for extending the benefit of such pay, but however, they were granted the same without verifying the records properly, and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners, which resulted in extending such benefit to them pursuant to issuance of orders in G.O.Ms.No.69, dated 03.09.2003. In that view of the matter, taking into account the hardship that will be caused to the petitioners in the event of permitting any recovery from their future salaries, we are of the view that no recoveries shall be made from the salaries payable to the petitioners, pursuant to cancellation of the minimum time scale extended to them. 21. Subject to the aforesaid directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J ___________________________ VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR, J 29th December 2009 ajr [1] AIR 1982 SC 1473 [2] AIR 1983 SC 328 [3] AIR 1998 SC 3164