SYED HABEEB Vs. CHIEF JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the petitioners herein are working as sweepers, Scavengers and water women in the office of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In pursuance of G.O. Ms. No. 233, F&P (F.W. PRC III) Department, dt. 19-3-1983 all these petitioners on completion of five years of service were given remuneration of Rs. 290/- per month with usual allowances like HRA etc., as were admissible. The pay-scales of the A.P. State Government employees were revised with effect from 1-7-1986 as per G.O.Ms. No. 288, F&P, d. 17-11-86. The revised scale of pay of Rs, 740-15-950-20-1150 corresponds to prerevised scale of Rs. 290-5-345-10-425. As per G.O.Ms. No. 233/F&P (F.W. PRC III) dated 19-8-1983, the monthly remuneration was fixed at Rs. 290/- as it was the lowest in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 290-425. As the lowest of the corresponding revised scale was Rs. 740/-. the City Civil Court had drawn the emoluments of these petitioners at the rate of Rs. 740/- per month with other allowances with effect from 1-7-1986. But the 2nd respondent herein viz., the Pay and Accounts Officer, raised an objection that the revised pay scales of 1986 as per G.O.Ms. No. 288, dated 17-11-1986 are not applicable to contingent employees as per para 11 of the said G.O. Then the petitioners filed this writ petition on 23-1-1989 praying for a direction to R-2 to pass the pay bills of the petitioners in the scale of Rs. 740 1150. As per the interm orders of this Court, R-2 was paying the salary of the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 740 1150.

(2.) During the pendency of this writ petition, G.O.Ms. No. 344, F&P dated 13-11-1989 was issued whereby the full time contingent employees who were not covered by G.O.Ms. Nos. 38 and 9 F&P, dated 1-2-1980 and 8-1-1981 respectively and who continue to work as full time contingent employees have to be paid remuneration of Rs. 740/- per month with other allowances like D,A, H.R.A. and C.C.C.A. at the rates admissible at the respective places of their duty from time to time to other Govt, employees, and it was given effect to from 1-10-1989.

(3.) In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the petitioners and the respondents, it is convenient to refer to the relevant G.Os. and Government Memos. G.O.Ms. No. 38 dated 1-2-1980 reads as follows:-