APHC010405472025

Judgment reserved on : 27.10.2025

Judgment pronounced on : 31.01.2026

Judgment uploaded on : 31.01.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVAT

SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

WRIT APPEAL NO: 888/2025

Between:

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

EDUCATION (IE) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI

AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE

DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3. THE BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE,, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 48-18- 2/A,

NAGARJUNA NAGAR, OPP- NTR HEALTH UNIVERSITY, VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA

DISTRICT-520008.

4. THE DIRECTORATE OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, REP. BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR,

4116/1 4TH LANE LAKSHMIPURAM, GUNTUR 522 002

5. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, , REP BY ITS

JOINT DIRECTOR GANESH NAGAR RAJAHMUNDRY EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

533105

6. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION,, REP BY ITS

JOINT DIRECTOR SABASIV APETA, BESIDE WOMENS COLLEGE GUNTUR BAZAR,

GUNTUR 522 003

7. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION,, REP BY ITS

JOINT DIRECTOR, ANDHRA UNIVERSITY NORTH CAMPUS MADDILAPALEM,

VISAKHAPATNAM-530 003

8. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, , REP BY ITS

JOINT DIRECTOR D NO 8/373- 45 NEAR NEW COLLECTORATE OFFICE BESIDE

DEO OFFICE, RIMS ROAD, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT - 516 004

9. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE,, VISANNAPET KRISHNA

DISTRICT.

10. THE PRINCIPAL,, KAC GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE. NELLORE

11. THE PRINCIPAL,, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE (G), CHIRALA, PRAKASAM

DISTRICT

2

12. THE PRINCIPAL,, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, SATTENAPALLI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT

13. THE PRINCIPAL,, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE KAVURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

14. THE PRINCIPAL,, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM

15. THE PRINCIPAL,, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, PENTAPADU, WEST GODAVARI

DISTRICT

16. THE PRINCIPAL,, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, RANASTHALAM, SRIKAKULAM

DISTRICT

17. THE PRINCIPAL,, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE (B), PALAKONDA, SRIKAKULAM

DISTRICT

18. THE PRINCIPAL,, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM

DISTRICT

19. THE PRINCIPAL,, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE,

HIRAMANDALAMRSRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

20. THE PRINCIPAL,, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, AMADALAVALASA,

SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

21. THE PRINCIPAL,, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI

DISTRICT

22. THE PRINCIPAL,, TKC GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, PALAMANERU,

CHITTOOR DISTRICT

23. THE PRINCIPAL,, GOVERNMENT VOCATIONAL JUNIOR COHEGE KAKINADA, EAST

GODAVARI DISTRICT

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1. K V RAVI SANKAR, , S/O MURALI MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 53YEARS, WORKING

AS JL IN MET (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, VISSANNAP ETA, KRISHNA

DISTRICT

2. D ADINARAYANA RAO, S/O D RANGA RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. WORKING AS

JL IN OA (VOCATIONAL COURSE) (MTS) K A C GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE,

NELLORE

3. N SRI RAMA MURTHY, S/O RAGHUNADHA RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. WORKING

AS JL IN COMPUTER SCIENCE (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE (G),

CHIRALA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

4. B SRINIVASA RAO, S/O SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. WORKING AS

JL IN AET (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, SATTENAPALLI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT.

5. T SUBBA RAO, S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. WORKING AS JL IN

COMMERCE (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, KAVUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

6. A RADHAKRISHNA, S/O A SATYAM AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. WORKING AS JL IN CT

(MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM.

7. KAPA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. WORKING AS JL

(VOCATIONAL) (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, PENTAPADU, WEST

3

GODAVARI DISTRICT

8. Y SRINIVASA RAO, , S/O Y APPALA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS JL

(VOCATIONAL) (MTS), G OVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, RANASTHALAM,

SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

9. V APPA RAO, S/O CHINNAM NAIDU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS JL

(VOCATIONAL) (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE (B), PALAKONDA,

SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

10. DR H RAJASEKHAR, S/O H APPALASWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKING AS

JL IN EET (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM

DISTRICT.

11. K AJAI KUMAR, S/O K. RAMA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. WORKING AS JL IN

CT (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

12. A V BUTCHI ABBAYI, S/O A MOHANA RAO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. WORKING AS JL

IN AET (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE HIRAMANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM

DISTRICT.

13. K SANYASI RAO, S/O K.SRIRAMULU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. WORKING AS JL IN

MET (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, AMADALAVALASA, SRIKAKULAM

DISTRICT.

14. KUNTA MURALI MOHANA KRISHNA, S/O VENKANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

WORKING AS JL (VOCATIONAL) (MTS), GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, ELURU,

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

15. A RAJESWARAMMA, W/O I.B.SAMPAT KU MAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. WORKING

AS JL (VOCATIONAL) (MTS), TKC GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE,

PALAMANERU, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

16. ADSSN MURTHY, S/O A VISWANATHAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. WORKING AS JL

(VOCATIONAL) (MTS), GOVERNMENT VOCATIONAL JUNIOR COLLEGE , KAKINADA,

EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. B RAMESH SC FOR BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION

2. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

The Court made the following:

4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

And

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

WRIT APPEAL No.888 of 2025

JUDGMENT: ((Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma)

Introductory:-

This Writ Appeal is directed against the Order dated 29.10.2024

passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.2351 of 2020.

2. The appellants are the respondents 1 to 23 in the Writ Petition. The

respondents No.1 to 16 herein are the writ petitioners.

3. The writ petition was filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the

action of the respondents in not releasing the annual grade increments and

HRA from the date of payment of minimum times scale extended as per

G.O.Ms.No.352 Education (I E 1) Department, dated 01.10.1994 along with

arrears as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 16

and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents

to release annual grade increments and HRA from the date of payment of

minimum time scale extended as per the said G.O..

4. The writ petition was allowed vide orders dated 29.10.2024.

Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides.

5

6. For the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to as the

writ petitioners and the respondents, as and how they are referred in the

impugned orders.

Case of the Writ Petitioners:-

7. [i] All the writ petitioners are working as part time Junior lecturers

in full time sanctioned posts of vocational courses in various government

Junior Colleges and all of them were appointed prior to 25.11.2019 on

part time basis. They are possessing requisite educational and technical

qualifications for appointment to the post of lecturer in Junior Colleges. The

details of the appointment, number of years of service, writ petitioner wise

are as follows:-

Sl.No. Name of the petitioner Date of appointment No. of years of

service

01. K.V. Ravi Shankar 01.08.1992 27

02. D.Adinarayana Rao 31.10.1990 29

03. N.Srirama Murthy 15.06.1992 27

04. B.Srinivas Rao 21.07.1993 26

05. T.Subba Rao 06.08.1991 26

06. A.Radha Krishna 05.07.1989 30

07. Kapa Srinivas Rao 12.07.1993 26

08. Y.Srinivasa Rao 10.07.1992 27

09. V.Appa Rao 22.07.1993 26

10. Dr.H.Raja Sekhar 09.07.1993 26

11. K.Ajai Kumar 01.08.1993 26

12. A.V. Buchi Abai 06.08.1993 28

13. K.Sanyasi Rao 02.08.1993 26

14. K.Murali Mohan Krishna 24.08.1993 26

15. A.Rajeswaramma 01.09.1990 29

16. A.D.S.S.N.Murthy 01.08.1990 29

6

[ii] The writ petitioners are engaged for total working hours in their

respective colleges and their services were utilised continuously throughout

the academic year for imparting education/training to the students and they

are paid for full month. They worked as invigilators, internal examiners and

they were sent to other colleges as external examiners and department

officers. Accordingly, they are entrusted with duties on par with the regular

lectures and treated as regular lectures for all purposes except payment of

salary. There are 1248 regular posts in vocational courses in the State, out

of them regularisation was effected in respect of 55 posts, who have

completed 5 years of service by 25.11.1993 and the cut of date in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994.

[iii] G.O.Ms.No.352 Education [IE.1] Department, dated 01.10.1994

was issued directing the 4

th

respondent to take action immediately for

payment of salary calculated at minimum pay scale and minimum time scale

is being paid from the date of the G.O.. Relevant part of the G.O., vide para

4 reads as follows:-

“As the scheme formulated in G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning (Pin)

Department dated 22.04.1994 is liberal and as it reflects the intention of

government for regularization of existing personnel, who are working on daily

wage/NMR etc., which was also upheld by the Supreme Court of India,

Government through the G.O.166, education department dated 08.06.1994

extended similar facilities to the part time lecturers and ordered that the part

time lecturers who have been working in regular vacancies or where work

justified appointment of regular lecturer for more than 3 years by 30.04.1991

or teaching over 16 period per week shall be paid the salary calculated on the

minimum scale of pay of Rs.1810-3230/- (revised pay scales, 1986 and

7

Rs.3640-7580/- (revised pay scales, 1993) for lecturers and Rs.1550-3050/-

(revised pay scales, 1986) and Rs.3110-6380/- (revised pay scales, 1993 for

junior lecturers plus all usual allowances instead of payment of salary on

hourly basis w.e.f. the commencement of academic year 1992-93.”

[iv] However, the respondent authorities did not pay other usual

allowances despite repeated representations submitted by the petitioners,

including the one dated 10.01.2020 through A.P. State of Vocational Junior

Lectures Association.

[v] The 1

st

respondent- State also directed the 4

th

respondent for

submission of proposals of regularisation of part time lecturers in vocational

Junior Lecturers working in Government Degree/Junior Colleges, but the

respondent authorities did not take any steps for regular recruitment.

[vi] The 2

nd

respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.142 (HR.I-Plg. & Policy)

Department, dated 27.08.2018 extending the minimum time scale in the

revised pay scale of 2015 to the full time/NMR/daily wages/consolidated

pay/part time employees, who were appointed before the cut of date i.e., on

25.11.1993 as stipulated in under G.O.No.212. However, the 2

nd

respondent

also issued G.O.Ms.No.26 (HR.I-Plg. & Policy) Department, dated

19.02.2019 extending certain benefit like funeral charges, casual leaves,

sanction of ex-gratio, maternity leave, enhancement of age of

superannuation 58-60 years, to the full time/NMR/daily wages/consolidated

pay/part time employees, who are appointed before the date i.e., 25.11.1993

as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.212.

8

[vii] However, the respondent authorities paid annual grade

increments and HRA to similarly situated employees, who are working in

various departments from the date of payment of minimum time scale, but

the same is not extended to the petitioners, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust

and discriminatory.

[viii] Similarly situated employees as that of petitioners, who worked

in M.A. and UD Department filed O.A.No.7335 of 2010 on the file of the A.P.

Administrative Tribunal [APAT], Hyderabad for release of annual grade

increments and HRA, the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. on 27.10.2010.

Aggrieved by the same, the government of Andhra Pradesh filed W.P.

No.24130 of 2011 and Batch before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same was dismissed.

[ix] Aggrieved by the same, the Government of A.P. filed SLP

No.29963 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Apex

Court has dismissed the SLP. Thereafter, the Government of A.P. released

annual grade increments and HRA and also arrears of pay to the similarly

situated employees for implementing the orders of the APAT in O.A.No.7335

of 2010 vide G.O.Rt.No.405 MA and UD (D1) Department, dated

30.03.2012. The other similarly situated employees working in PR&RD

department filed O.A.No.5281 of 2012, which was allowed by the APAT and

the same was questioned in W.P.No.14116 of 2018 before the Hon’ble High

Court of A.P. and the High Court allowed the same, directing the

respondents to implement the orders; the same was again carried SLP

9

No.31271 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the SLP was

dismissed on 10.12.02018 thereafter, government of A.P. released annual

grade increments.

[x] O.A.No.7976 of 2010 and batch filed by similarly situated

employees working in MA & UD Department on the file of APAT, Hyderabad

was allowed, against which W.P.No.12498 of 2015 and batch filed before

the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same is

dismissed on 29.02.2015. Challenging the same, the State preferred SLP

No.18264 of 2019 before the Supreme Court and the same is dismissed

vide order dated 02.07.2019. Therefore, the petitioners being similarly

situated are entitled for the relief prayed for.

Contentions of the respondents in counter affidavit:-

8. [i] The 4

th

respondent filed counter stating that the principals of

Degree/Junior Colleges were accorded permission to utilize the services of

persons as part time Junior Lecturers engaging classes in the colleges on

part time hourly basis at Rs.20/- per hour vide G.O.Ms.No.1645 dated

20.08.1982, Sri K.V. Ravi Sankar and 15 other part time junior lecturers,

who are working in vocational courses on minimum times scale in vocation

courses were initially engaged in the year 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and

1993. The part time junior lecturers in vocational courses, those who had

fulfilled the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No. 212, Finance & Planning

Department, dated 22.04.1994 and also orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.352

10

Education [IE.1] Department dated 01.10.1994, were regularized. The

petitioners are in service as on 25.11.1993 which is a crucial date, but the

petitioners in the writ petition were engaged as part time junior lecturers in

vocational courses, have not fulfilled the said conditions stipulated terms of

G.O.Ms. No.212 and G.O.Ms.No.352. Hence their services were not

regularized.

[ii] As the scheme formulated by the Government in

G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994 is more

liberal, the services of part time Lecturers/Junior Lecturers, those who are

working against regular vacancies, having 16 hours of work in a week and

put in 5 years of service by 25.11.1993, subject to possessing the

qualifications prescribed for the post, be regularized as Junior Lecturers

with effect from the date of issue of orders. Further, the Government in its

Memo No. 552416/1E/A1/2020 dated 25.11.2020 accorded permission to

Special Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur

to continue the Part time staff, Type writing instructors, Lab Attenders, Type

writing Mechanics and other staff working with Minimum Time Scale/Hourly

Basis/Consolidated Pay in Vocational Stream in Government Junior

Colleges in the State, for 12 months with a break of 10 days for the year

2020-21 from 01.04.2020 to 30.03.2021, subject to existing conditions the

same was communicated vide Rc.No.Voc1/1/696/2015, dated 26.11.2020 to

all District Vocational Education officers in the state and requested to take

further action in the matter. The petitioners are presently drawing minimum

11

Pay +DA. (vide para 11 of the affidavit filed by the 4

th

appellant-Krithika

Shukla in I.A.No.2 of 205 in this appeal)

[iii] The petitioners working on Part time basis and taking the

classes 04 periods per a day [i.e.] 45 minutes per class, totally five and half

hours only, and they are continued with a break of 10 days for every year

renewal by the Government and also increments and allowances

sanctioned/released only Regular Employees only as per the provisions of

FR. But the instant case, the petitioners are working on Part Time basis on

MTS. Hence, they are not eligible for sanction of annual grade increments

and H.R.A. and also there are no specific rules for sanction of increments

and H.R.A. to the part time employees.

[iv] Further, it is stated that in the precedent cases mentioned by

the petitioners in the similar situated cases, the Panchayat Raj & Rural

Development (IE-1) Department and M. A.& U.D. Department has issued

orders to implement the Impugned order of the Hon'ble Courts as a special

case and to submit the compliance report to the Hon'ble Courts. This may

not become a precedent to other similarly situated cases. This orders

issued with the concurrence of Finance Department. The Government

made it clear that, the extension of increment to the NMRs and Daily wage

employees working in Panchayat Raj Department and M.A. & U.D.

Department only, it should not be treated as precedent. The Part Time

Junior Lecturers are working in our department and NMR and daily wage

12

employees working in their Departments are not one and the same. If the

case of the petitioners considered it will became further precedent for others

to follow and it leads to unending legal complications.

Findings of Learned Single Judge:-

9. Learned Single Judge of this Court under the impugned orders dated

29.10.2024, after considering the G.O.Ms.No.352 and other allegations vide

O.A.No.7335 of 2010, W.P.No.24130 of 211 and Batch, SLP.

(Civil)No.29963 to 29965 of 2011 dated 14.11.2011, directed the

respondents in the writ petition to release annual grade increments and

HRA from the date of payment of minimum time scale extended as per

G.O.Ms.No.352 Education (IE-1) Department, dated 01.10.1994 along with

arrears. Questioning the same, present appeal is filed.

Arguments in the present Appeal:-

For the appellants:-

10. (i) Learned Government Pleader for Services –II appearing for the

appellants submitted that FR-22 deals with the increments to the

Government Employees covered by CCA Rules. Whereas the services

rendered in temporary capacity without fulfilling the statutory criteria to open

market cannot be the basis for computing the increments. The Writ

Petitioners were engaged on temporary basis without following due process

of recruitment like employment notification, proper selection, procedure

through APPSC etc.. Therefore, ordering Annual Grade increments on par

13

with the regular employees is not correct. The increments are granted

under the impugned order on assumptions.

(ii) Reliance made in respect of other cases are on facts based in

different contexts. Therefore, the same cannot be the criteria.

(iii) In order to ensure prompt withdrawal of the increments, the

Drawing Officer has to verify the service book of all the eligible employees,

for whom the increments are due in each month of succeeding year and if

the persons are eligible, then only the increments will be proposed and

released. In respect of temporarily engaged part time staff, when no such

service books are maintained, the compliance of required procedure is not

possible.

For the respondents:-

11. (i) The issue is squarely covered by the judgments of the Co-

ordinate Division Bench of this Court in some other cases, and confirmed by

the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the

orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

(ii) In respect of similarly situated employees of the same category,

or different categories, i.e., the employees engaged on part time basis, the

benefit of annual grade increments, HRAs are granted and the directions

are implemented. Therefore, taking the objection in respect of the writ

petitioners is not acceptable as the same is discriminatory, which is properly

14

appreciated by the learned Single Judge, therefore, there are no grounds to

interfere and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

12. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both

sides.

13. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are,

(1) Whether the directions in the impugned orders to release

annual grade increments, HRA etc., in respect of the writ petitioners

are sustainable or require any interference? If so, to what extent?

(2) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:-

14. There is no dispute about the writ petitioners working as Junior

lecturers on pat time basis. The core objection the respondent authorities

raising is that there are no specific rules for sanction of Annual Grade

increment and HRA to the part time employees. As per the contention of

the respondents in their counter affidavit, the writ petitioners were engaged

as part time junior lecturers in vocational courses. Reliance is placed on

G.O.Ms.Nos.212 and 352. Further there is no dispute about the extension

of benefit of Annual Grade increments etc. to the similarly situated cases in

respect of Panjayat Raj and Rural Development Department and MA &UD

Departments in terms of Orders of the Hon’ble High Court. The excuse

the appellant submits is that as a special case to report compliance to the

Court, the benefit was given to the similarly situated persons.

15

15. [i] In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

1

(3) Others, the

Constitutional Bench of three, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered

the scope of regularisation and equal pay for equal work vide paragraphs 44

and 55 of the judgment and observed that the daily-wage earners be paid

wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade concerned without any

allowances. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:-

“44. The concept of “equal pay for equal work” is different from the concept of

conferring permanency on those who have been appointed on ad hoc basis,

temporary basis, or based on no process of selection as envisaged by the rules.

This Court has in various decisions applied the principle of equal pay for equal work

and has laid down the parameters for the application of that principle. The decisions

are rested on the concept of equality enshrined in our Constitution in the light of the

directive principles in that behalf. But the acceptance of that principle cannot lead to

a position where the court could direct that appointments made without following the

due procedure established by law, be deemed permanent or issue directions to treat

them as permanent. Doing so, would be negation of the principle of equality of

opportunity. The power to make an order as is necessary for doing complete justice

in any cause or matter pending before this Court, would not normally be used for

giving the go-by to the procedure established by law in the matter of public

employment. Take the situation arising in the cases before us from the State of

Karnataka. Therein, after Dharwad decision [(1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC (L&S)

274 : (1990) 12 ATC 902 : (1990) 1 SCR 544] the Government had issued repeated

directions and mandatory orders that no temporary or ad hoc employment or

engagement be given. Some of the authorities and departments had ignored those

directions or defied those directions and had continued to give employment,

specifically interdicted by the orders issued by the executive. Some of the

appointing officers have even been punished for their defiance. It would not be just

or proper to pass an order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the

Constitution or in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution permitting

those persons engaged, to be absorbed or to be made permanent, based on their

appointments or engagements. Complete justice would be justice according to law

and though it would be open to this Court to mould the relief, this Court would not

grant a relief which would amount to perpetuating an illegality.

…..

“55. In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes Department, the High

Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the

1

(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 407

16

salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in

government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively

appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of

engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that

these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being

paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from

the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open

to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question

before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to

have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They

had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of

the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed

that wages equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees be paid to

these daily-wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that

part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these

daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of

employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government

service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.

Since, they are only daily-wage earners, there would be no question of other

allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that the courts are not

expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set

aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to

consider their cases for regularisation. We also notice that the High Court has not

adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularization or it was giving

permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the

direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would

stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be

vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular

process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents

in CAs Nos. 3595-612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly

situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the

recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in

the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the

exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to

them.”

[ii] The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh

2

laid down the law that the principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable

to temporary employees as well. It is apt to reproduce paras 44, 56, 57, 58,

59 and 61 as under:

“44. We shall first outline the conclusions drawn in cases where a

claim for pay parity, raised at the hands of the concerned temporary

2

2017(1) SCC 148

17

employees, was accepted by this Court, by applying the principle of ‘equal

pay for equal work’, with reference to regular employees:-

(i) In the Dhirendra Chamoli case (1986 (1) SCC 637), this Court

examined a claim for pay parity raised by temporary employees, for wages

equal to those being disbursed to regular employees. The prayer was

accepted. The action of not paying the same wage, despite the work being

the same, was considered as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It

was held, that the action amounted to exploitation – in a welfare state

committed to a socialist pattern of society.

(ii) In the Surinder Singh (1986 1 SCC 639) this Court held, that the

right of equal wages claimed by temporary employees emerged, inter alia,

from Article 39 of the Constitution. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal

work’ was again applied, where the subject employee had been appointed

on temporary basis, and the reference employee was borne on the

permanent establishment. The temporary employee was held entitled to

wages drawn by an employee on the regular establishment. In this

judgment, this Court also took note of the fact, that the above proposition

was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in the D.S. Nakara

case2.

(iii) In the Bhagwan Dass case (1987 4 SCC 634) this Court

recorded, that in a claim for equal wages, the duration for which an

employee would remain (- or had remained) engaged, would not make any

difference. So also, the manner of selection and appointment would make

no difference. And therefore, whether the selection was made on the basis

of open competition or was limited to a cluster of villages, was considered

inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle is concerned.

And likewise, whether the appointment was for a fixed limited duration (six

months, or one year), or for an unlimited duration, was also considered

inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle of ‘equal pay for

equal work’ is concerned. It was held, that the claim for equal wages would

be sustainable, where an employee is required to discharge similar duties

and responsibilities as regular employees, and the concerned employee

possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post. In the above case, this

Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the Government, that

the plea of equal wages by the employees in question, was not sustainable

because the concerned employees were engaged in a temporary scheme,

and against posts which were sanctioned on a year to year basis.

(iv) In the Daily Rated Casual Labour (1988 2 SCC 122) this Court held,

that under principle flowing from Article 38(2) of the Constitution,

Government could not deny a temporary employee, at least the minimum

wage being paid to an employee in the corresponding regular cadre,

alongwith dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance, as well

as, all the other benefits which were being extended to casual workers. It

was also held, that the classification of workers (as unskilled, semi-skilled

and skilled), doing the same work, into different categories, for payment of

wages at different rates, was not tenable. It was also held, that such an act

of an employer, would amount to exploitation. And further that, the same

would be arbitrary and discriminatory, and therefore, violative of Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution.

(v) In State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh (1998 9 SCC 595) this Court held,

that daily-wagers were entitled to be placed in the minimum of the pay-

scale of regular employees, working against the same post. The above

18

direction was issued after accepting, that the concerned employees, were

doing the same work as regular incumbents holding the same post, by

applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’.

(vi) In the Secretary, State of Karnataka case (2006 4 SCC 1), a

Constitution Bench of this Court, set aside the judgment of the High Court,

and directed that daily-wagers be paid salary equal to the lowest grade of

salary and allowances being paid to regular employees. Importantly, in this

case, this Court made a very important distinction between pay parity and

regularization. It was held that the concept of equality would not be

applicable to issues of absorption/regularization. But, the concept was held

as applicable, and was indeed applied, to the issue of pay parity – if the

work component was the same. The judgment rendered by the High Court,

was modified by this Court, and the concerned daily-wage employees were

directed to be paid wages, equal to the salary at the lowest grade of the

concerned cadre.

(vii) In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006 9 SCC 321) , a three-

Judge bench of this Court held, that the decisions rendered by this Court in

State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, the Orissa

University of Agriculture & Technology case10, and Government of W.B. v.

Tarun K. Roy , laid down the correct law. Thereupon, this Court declared,

that if the concerned daily-wage employees could establish, that they were

performing equal work of equal quality, and all other relevant factors were

fulfilled, a direction by a Court to pay such employees equal wages (from

the date of filing the writ petition), would be justified.

(viii) In State of U.P. v. Putti Lal (1996 11 SCC 77) , based on decisions in

several cases (wherein the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ had been

invoked), it was held, that a daily-wager discharging similar duties, as those

engaged on regular basis, would be entitled to draw his wages at the

minimum of the pay-scale (drawn by his counterpart, appointed on regular

basis), but would not be entitled to any other allowances or increments.

(ix) In the Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation case (2003 6 SCC

123) this Court noticed, that the respondents were employed on contract

basis, on a consolidated salary. But, because they were actually appointed

to perform the work of the post of Assistant Engineer, this Court directed

the employer to pay the respondents wages, in the minimum of the pay-

scales ascribed for the post of Assistant Engineer.

.......

......

56. We shall now deal with the claim of temporary employees before this

Court.

57. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of equal pay for equal

work‟ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the

Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of

judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The

same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of

India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph

42 hereinabove. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been

extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-

wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to

temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove.

19

The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated

by us, yet again.

58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to

deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid

less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly

not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the

very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser

wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his

family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at

the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer

immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages,

as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative

enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is

oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.

59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7, of the International Covenant

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below:-

“Article 7 The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of

everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure,

in particular:

(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:

(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without

distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work

not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;

(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the

provisions of the present Covenant;

(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;

(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an

appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority

and competence;

(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays

with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.” India is a signatory to the

above covenant, having ratified the same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape from

the above obligation, in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to

above, and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the

Constitution of India, the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ constitutes a clear

and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee – whether engaged on

regular or temporary basis.

60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of

the principle of “equal pay for equal work‟, in relation to temporary employees

(daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis,

contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination

is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar

duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees,

holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application

of the parameters of the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ summarized by us

in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is

concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so,

because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State

of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were

appointed against posts which were also available in the regular

20

cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their

employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed

to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were

assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive

posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to

temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any

doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees

in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular

employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did

not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis.

Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees

would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in

paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay

for equal work’ would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so

as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-

scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post.

61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we

have no hesitation in holding, that all the concerned temporary employees, in the

present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the

pay-scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay- scale), extended to regular

employees, holding the same post.”

[iii] In Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray and Others

3

, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the entitlement or otherwise for

minimum pay scale attached to the posts and the interpretation of words

and phrases “permanent” and “regular” employee, pay parity/pay scale and

also distinction between ‘pay parity’ and ‘regularization’. In Paras15 to 17 of

the judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred the case of Jagjit

Singh’s case and Uma Devi’s case as well as the Pay parity, which are as

follows:-

“15. At this stage, reference is made to the aforesaid judgment in Jagjit

Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1]

for the purpose that even if principle of “equal pay for equal work” is applicable

and the pay in the regular pay scale is admissible to such employees, these

3

(2017) 3 SCC 436 : 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1475

21

employees would be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale and not the

increments. This case is taken note of and discussed in Jagjit Singh in the

following manner : (SCC pp. 199-201, para 36)

“ 36.State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , decided by a five-Judge

Constitution Bench:

36.1. Needless to mention, that the main proposition canvassed in

the instant judgment, pertained to regularisation of the government

servants, based on the employees having rendered long years of service,

as temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or on ad hoc basis. It is,

however relevant to mention, that the Constitution Bench did examine the

question of wages, which such employees were entitled to draw. In para 8

of the judgment, a reference was made to Civil Appeals Nos. 3595-612 of

1999, wherein, the respondent employees were temporarily engaged on

daily wages in the Commercial Taxes Department. As they had rendered

service for more than 10 years, they claimed permanent employment in the

Department. They also claimed benefits as were extended to regular

employees of their cadre, including wages (equal to their salary and

allowances) with effect from the dates from which they were appointed.

Even though the Administrative Tribunal had rejected their claim, by

returning a finding, that they had not made out a case for payment of

wages, equal to those engaged on regular basis, the High Court held that

they were entitled to wages, equal to the salary of regular employees of

their cadre, with effect from the date from which they were appointed. The

direction issued by the High Court resulted in payment of higher wages

retrospectively, for a period of 10 and more years. It would also be relevant

to mention, that in passing the above direction, the High Court had relied

on the decision rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dharwad

District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees' Assn. v. State of Karnataka

[Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees' Assn. v. State of

Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 274] .

36.2. The Constitution Bench, having noticed the contentions of the

rival parties, on the subject of wages payable to daily wagers, recorded its

conclusions as under : [Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , SCC p. 43, para 55]

‘55.In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes

Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily

wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being

paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with

effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The

objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of

engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in

directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and

allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in

government service, with effect from the dates from which they were

respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to

impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the

High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to

22

have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other

benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do

so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the

High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that is

being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily-wage employees

with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction

of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily-wage

earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of

employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in

government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench

of the High Court. Since, they are only daily-wage earners, there would

be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our

conclusion, that the courts are not expected to issue directions for making

such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction

of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for

regularisation. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the

aspect as to whether it was regularisation or it was giving permanency

that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the

direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the

State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant

(they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling

those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular

recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in CAs Nos. 3595-612 and

those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be

allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the

recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for

work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the

extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the

Constitution to do justice to them.’

36.3. We have extracted the aforesaid paragraph, so as not to

make any inference on our own, but to project the determination rendered

by the Constitution Bench, as was expressed by the Bench. We have no

hesitation in concluding, that the Constitution Bench consciously

distinguished the issue of pay parity, from the issue of

absorption/regularisation in service. It was held that on the issue of pay

parity, the High Court ought to have directed, that the daily-wage workers

be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of their cadre. The

Constitution Bench expressed the view that the concept of equality would

not be applicable to the issue of absorption/regularisation in service. And

conversely, on the subject of pay parity, it was unambiguously held, that

daily-wage earners should be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest

grade (without any allowances).”

16. Another significant reason for referring to the judgment of Jagjit Singh

[State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] is

that the Court culled out the principles of “equal pay for equal work” from the

earlier judgments on the subject and collated them at one place. Further, the

Court also drew an important distinction between the grant of benefit of “equal

pay for equal work” to temporary employees on the one hand and the status of

23

regular employees on the other hand. Insofar as parameters of principles of

“equal pay for equal work” deduced by the Court are concerned (para 42), our

purpose of deduction stated in sub-para (vi) thereof is important, which is

reproduced below : (SCC p. 207)

“42.6. For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant has to

be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been

selected, on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An

employee appointed on a temporary basis cannot claim to be

placed in the regular pay scale (see Orissa University of

Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty [Orissa

University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty,

(2003) 5 SCC 188 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 645] ).”

17. Insofar as distinction between pay parity and regularisation of

service is concerned, referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Umadevi

(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753],

the Court made the following observations : (Jagjit Singh case [State of Punjab

v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] , SCC p. 216, para

49)

“49.1. We are of the considered view, that in para 44 extracted above, the

Constitution Bench clearly distinguished the issues of pay parity, and

regularisation in service. It was held, that on the issue of pay parity, the

concept of “equality” would be applicable (as had indeed been applied by the

Court, in various decisions), but the principle of “equality” could not be

invoked for absorbing temporary employees in government service, or for

making temporary employees regular/permanent. All the observations made

in the above-extracted paragraphs, relate to the subject of

regularisation/permanence, and not, to the principle of “equal pay for equal

work”. As we have already noticed above, the Constitution Bench

unambiguously held, that on the issue of pay parity, the High Court ought to

have directed, that the daily-wage workers be paid wages equal to the

salary, at the lowest grade of their cadre. This deficiency was made good, by

making such a direction.”

[iv] In respect of daily wage employees in the State of U.P. and

Others Vs. Putilal

4

vide para 5 it is observed that the daily wager is entitled

to receive minimum pay-scale though he may not be entitled to any

4

2006(9) SCC 337

24

increment or other allowances that is admissible to his counterpart in the

government. Para 5 of the observations are as follows:-

“5. In several cases this Court applying the principle of equal pay for

equal work has held that a daily-wager, if he is discharging the similar

duties as those in the regular employment of the Government, should at

least be entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scale though he might

not be entitled to any increment or any other allowance that is permissible

to his counterpart in the Government. In our opinion that would be the

correct position and we, therefore, direct that these daily-wagers would be

entitled to draw at the minimum of the pay scale being received by their

counterparts in the Government and would not be entitled to any other

allowances or increment so long as they continue as daily-wagers. The

question of their regular absorption will obviously be dealt with in

accordance with the statutory rules already referred to.”

16. In catena of decisions cited above, in Jagjith Singhs’ case vide para

44 issue with regard to equal pay for equal work, salary equal to lowest

grade of salary being paid to regular employees was considered as the pay

parity. There is clear mention that a daily wager discharging similar duties

as those engaged on regular basis would be entitled to draw his wages at

the minimum pay scale (drawn by counter- part, appointed on regular

basis), but would not be entitled to any other allowances or increments.

The situation of daily wage employees whether similar to the situation of

temporary employees, requires consideration.

17. [i] In P. Khadar Basha, S/o. Masthan Khan and four others vs.

State of A.P and others

5

, a Division Bench of this Court held that the pay

5

2017 Supreme (AP) 357 : 2017 6 ALT 302

25

scale of pay, in Rule 31 (a) of Rule 9 of A.P. Fundamental Rules means pay

which, subject to any condition prescribed in those rules, rises by periodical

increments from a minimum to maximum. The scale of pay has to change

with the change of time by addition of periodical increments and once the

minimum pay scale is extended to the temporary employees they are also

entitled to addition of increments from time to time in the minimum pay

scale, without being entitled to all other allowances to which regular

employees are entitled.

[ii] We deem it proper to extract paragraphs 7 to 12 of P. Khadar

Basha (cited 2 supra) as under:

“7. The learned senior counsel has also drawn our attention to the judgment of a

Division Bench of this Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs.

S.Nageswara Rao and others, wherein this Court allowed a similar claim made by

NMRs/temporary employees of certain municipalities. In this context, it is apt to extract

the observations of the Division Bench below:-

“There is no dispute that all of them were given regular scale of pay and also

conferred the benefit of revised pay scales as and when new scales were

implemented in the State of Andhra Pradesh. After giving regular scale of pay

and also granting annual grade increments for some time, various

Municipalities and Municipal Corporations stopped releasing increments and

giving revised scales of pay, necessitating adjudication of the same by the

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The respondents are

casual/NMR/temporary Class-IV employees, who do similar work and

discharge similar functions as any regular Class-IV employees. The principle

of equal pay for equal work would bar the State or its agents from denying

annual grade increments and revised scale of pay to the respondents. We are,

therefore, not impressed with the argument that the grant of annual grade

increments or grant of revised pay scales to the respondents would

contravene the provisions of the A.P. Act 2 of 1994.

8. In our view, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed by them based on

the above-mentioned precedents. Even otherwise also, going by the definition of time

scale of pay in Ruling-31(a) of Rule-9 of the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules, the

petitioners are entitled to payment of increments. This Rule reads as under:

26

Time scale of pay means pay which subject to any condition prescribed in

these rules, rises by periodical increments from a minimum to maximum.

It indicates the class of pay hirtherto known as progressive.

9. The above-extracted definition of time scale of pay leaves us in no doubt that

the scale of pay has to change with the change of times by addition of periodical

increments. Otherwise the expression time scale would have no meaning at all.

10. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that as the

petitioners have been extended the minimum time scale, they are entitled to addition of

increments from time to time in the minimum time scale without being entitled to all other

allowances which a regular employee is entitled.

11. The learned Government Pleader for Services (Andhra Pradesh) submitted

that the Court may consider limiting the grant of annual grade increments to the

petitioners to a reasonable past period as, the relief of payment of arrears, if granted from

the time of extension of the minimum time scale to the petitioners, would cause huge

burden on the exchequer.

12. Though in strict sense, the petitioners are entitled to all the arrears, keeping in

view the fact that they have approached the Tribunal only in the year 2013 and also the

public interest, we restrict the said benefit only from the date of filing of the said O.A. by

the petitioners. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed in part to the extent indicated

above. The respondents shall revise the minimum time scale of pay of the petitioners by

adding the annual grade increments as and when they fell due from time to time.”

18. It was a situation of where the regular scale of pay was already given

and also granting annual grade increments to employees for some time and

thereafter stopping revised increments in respect of some employees while

paying in respect of some of the employees. Therefore, there was a

situation of equality and withdrawal of increment already granted and it was

not a case of granting increments for the first time. So the observations in

Khadar Basha’s case are not applicable to the present case before this

Court.

27

19. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. J. Ravi

6

a co-ordinate Division

Bench of this Court has considered the interpretation of minimum scale with

respect to DA and HRA. In the said judgment, the observations of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka (cited above) as to

pay partity and Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Aswini Ray (cited above) and Jagjith

Singh’s case (cited above) are all referred vide para 14 to 20 and in para 20

it is observed that -

“20. In view of the aforesaid, the 1

st

respondent was entitled to

minimum of the pay scale which was attached to the post but without any

increments or/and allowances.”

20. In the said judgment, in respect of the argument that for similarly

situated individuals, where the minimum pay scale for DA and HRA were

granted, the co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court observed that once the

case is presented and order is challenged by the State that has to be

decided as per the law of the land.

21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bahadur Singh and Others Vs. Jaspreet

Kaur Talwar and Others

7

has considered the expression ‘Pay’ and

“minimum of the pay” as to include Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance also

vide para-4 judgment.

21. It is clear from the affidavit of the 4

th

appellant that the minimum pay

and DA being paid in respect of the writ petitioners. It is also clear that

6

2023 6 ALD 83 :2023 Supreme (AP) 680

7

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1077

28

minimum pay attached to a particular category will have periodical revision

but minimum pay alone will be paid on application of revised pay scale. On

pay revision, the pay scale revised at minimum will be the time scale

applicable and said minimum pay scale attached to a particular category will

be paid. Fixation of Time Scale and DA will be done time to time by the

State by adopting certain scientific methods. Pay would include DA for

several legal purposes like Income Tax and exemption from attachment in

terms of Section 60 of CPC etc.,. Allowances and increments are different

and they have their own basis, in terms of position, place and the service an

individual puts in. Minimum Time Scale refers to the starting rate of scale of

Pay. The DA will be paid basing on the Pay. In the present case, there is

no serious dispute about payment of DA. As per the affidavit of 4

th

appellant, minimum pay and DA are being paid to the writ petitioners.

22. Granting of annual grade increments, HRA etc., will make the

temporary/daily wage employees as good as the regular employees. As

rightly contended that fundamental rules and periodical reviews etc., are

there for granting of Annual Grade Increments by the appointing authority in

respect of regular employees after periodical check on conduct by the

controlling authority. Without there being any such check or maintenance of

the record etc., in respect of the employees, who were granted the minimum

scale, if all the benefits and perks on par with the regular employees are

given, ignoring the rules applicable to the regular employees who have

undergone all checks that will result in negative equality. There can be

29

equality among the equals. When work being done is same the pay can be

same. But with regard to perks and allowances are concerned, since they

are attached to the posts by virtue of specific rules and regulations under

which process an employee undergoes, extending the similar benefit to

another employee whose entry is different and who is aware that his

employment is ad hoc/temporary or etc., will amount to treating unequals

alike.

23. In the absence of any rules, and when the process of recruitment is

not similar, the concept of equality and the argument that there shall be

equality in every respect merely on the basis of similarity of work being

done does not merit positive consideration.

24. In view of the authoritative pronouncement referred above, and also

to maintain the judicial comity, we are of the considered view that the orders

of the learned Single Judge to the extent of granting Annual Grade

increments and HRA from the date of minimum scale extended is liable to

be set aside. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:-

25. In view of the above discussion, in the result, appeal is partly

allowed, as follows:

The relief of periodical increments and HRA granted under the

impugned orders dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of

30

this Court in W.P.No.2351 of 2020 is set aside while recording the statement

of respondent-State that minimum time scale and DA are being paid to the

writ petitioners.

26. Before parting we find it proper to make the following general

observations as to good practices from every employer particularly State,

expecting positive response from all the Government Departments:-

(1) Steps shall be taken for regular employment in advance every

year taking note of the retirements of the current year/next year and

increase of work load if any.

(2) If the administrative emergency demands, the engagement of

temporary/ad hoc/outsourcing employment can be in respect of regular

posts for limited period. But, engaging the services on such basis shall be

preceded by sanctioning of regular posts in time frame.

27. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________________

JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

__________________________________

JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA

Dated: 31.01.2026

Pnr