THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2003 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice G Bhavani Prasad) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment in W P No. 17750 of 2000 dated 17.2.2003. The respondent Union filed the writ petition requesting for grant of scale of pay with effect from 1.7.1996 with monetary benefits from 1.7.1992 to the helpers working with the appellants as extended to the Assistant Fitters and Assistant Wiremen and other categories of employees working with the appellants. The grievance of the Association of Helpers is that they were given the benefit of the scale of pay w.e.f. 1.9.1998 only, showing unjust discrimination against them, though Helpers, Assistant Fitters, Assistant Wiremen, Operators, Mechanical and Electrical are of equivalent categories with the same qualifications working in different departments. The Feeder category for promotion to higher categories is the post of helper and the pay scales of all the posts were earlier similar, the only benefit of promotion being grant of four increments in other higher cadres. However, the appellants were alleged to have extended the revised pay scales of 1993 to the other posts w.e.f. 1.4.1992, whereas the Helpers were given the benefit of similar scale only from 1.9.1998. The appellants opposed the request of the Association of Helpers contending that the adoption of revision of pay scales for Assistant Wiremen and Assistant Fitters was in accordance with the directions of the High Court in W.P. No. 18256 of 1988 and W P No. 17851 of 1988 and the said judgments though originally challenged in writ appeals, later were resolved to be complied with. The appellants contend that the members of the Association of Helpers belong to last grade services and entitled to scale of pay permissible to the last grade services only but still implementation of the scale of pay of Rs.1475—2625/- under the revised pay scales 1993 was considered as a special case and they are not entitled to any further benefits. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the impugned judgment considered the rival contentions and noted that the factual matrix is not in dispute. The learned Single Judge observed that the work being attended to by the helpers even during the odd hours for maintaining electrical and water supply to the visiting pilgrims to Tirumala was considered by Devastanam itself to extend the benefit of implementation of corresponding government scales. The learned Single Judge also noted that in fact, the nature of work discharged by the helpers is more onerous than the Assistant Fitters and Assistant Wiremen, as the helpers are required to attend the service for maintenance at odd and all hours. The learned Single Judge further observed that the Apex Court considered a similar issue in Laljee Dubey Vs. Union of India[1] and an earlier judgment in Purushottam Lal Vs Union of India [2] and held that non implementation of recommendations of pay commission similarly in respect of identically placed employees will be violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge hence found no basis for adopting different standards for the helpers and other similarly placed employees and concluded that helpers are entitled to be treated on par with Assistant Fitters and Assistant Wiremen against which conclusion the Devastanam was unable to give any justifiable reasons. Consequently, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants herein to extend the benefit of corresponding pay scales to helpers on par with the Assistant Wiremen and Assistant Fitters working in the same department with further direction to implement the said orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said orders. The appellants seek to challenge the said judgment on very same grounds on which they opposed in the writ petition and tried to contend that there is no corresponding post to the post of helpers in the Devastanam in the State Government services and helpers in the Government are work-charged establishment and are not regular employees. The posts of Assistant Fitters and Assistant Wiremen were contended to be belonging to higher cadre and therefore they contended that there is no element of discrimination in not extending the scales of pay to the helpers from 1992. Heard learned standing counsel for appellants/Devastanam and Mr S.Lakshma Reddy on behalf of the respondents. The judgment impugned in this appeal is elaborate and well reasoned and in tune with the basic constitutional safeguards against discrimination. The factual background not being in dispute, the discrimination shown to helpers as against Assistant Fitters and Assistant Wiremen in extending revised pay scales of 1993, is self evident and there is absolutely no rational basis or reason for giving effect to such scales of pay from different dates in respect of the employees discharging similar responsibilities and in fact as observed by the learned Single Judge, helpers are discharging more onerous responsibilities. When the appellants have decided to implement the direction of this Court in W.P. No. 18256 of 1988 and W P No. 17851 of 1988 in respect of Assistant Fitters and Assistant Wiremen without any protest, the same reasons and logic should enable the appellants to comply with the directions of this Court in respect of helpers also. The conclusions of the learned Single Judge are fortified by two binding precedents of the Apex Court, more or less under similar circumstances. Without any need for further elaboration, the conclusions of the learned single Judge that helpers are entitled to be treated on par with the Assistant Fitters and Assistant Wiremen, has to be upheld. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed without costs. _______________ B PRAKASH RAO,J __________________ G BHAVANI PRASAD,J DATE: 19.7.2010 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2003 Date: 19.7.2010 [1] AIR 1974 SC 252 [2] AIR 1973 SC 1088