T.NAVEEN BABU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioners No.1 to 3 herein were appointed on 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively on Petty Supervisory charges and they have completed 10 years of service and even their cases are recommended by the Executive Officer of the 3rdrespondent temple for payment of Minimum wages on par with the regular employees vide proceedings in Rc. No.A1/1656/2019 dtd. 6/12/2019, Rc. No.E1/653/2019 dtd. 5/7/2019 and Rc. No.A1/1656/2019 dated 17-8- 2019 and the same are pending. It is stated that, as on today, the petitioners are paid as follows S.No. Name Cadre Salary (pP.M) 1 T. Naveen Babu Work Inspector 18000/- (Civil) 2 M Veeraiah Work Inspector 12000/- (Mechanical) 3 K. Shanmukha Venkatesh Asst Sthapathi 16500/ It is further stated that the petitioners are eligible for payment on par with the regular employees as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab,2017 (1) SCC 148. as the petitioners are performing the duties assigned to regular employees, and further, the petitioners possess the required qualification to hold the posts on par with the regular employees. As such, the petitioners are eligible for extension of minimum time scale in the 3rdrespondent on par with the regular employees. Further the work in the temple is perennial in nature as such the petitioners are eligible for payment of equal pay equal work on par with the regular employees. It is further stated that Petitioners services are equal to that of the regular employees, there is no differences between the services rendered by the petitioners with relation to the duties, functions and responsibilities as such, petitioners are eligible for the extension of time scale attached to the respective post as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017(1) SCC 148. It is further stated that in the similar circumstances this Hon'ble Court has granted interim orders in W.P.No.38513 of 2018 and W.P.No.38820 of 2018 to the employees working on P.S. Charges, hence the petitioners stand on the similar footing as such they are entitled for minimum time scale in their respective cadre basing on the Apex court and this Hon'ble Court orders. It is further stated that the petitioners have filed W.P. No.13641 of 2020 before this Hon'ble Court declaring the action of the respondents herein in not extending the 2015 time scale to them in their respective cadre on par with regular employees as per the Judgment of Apex Court reported in 2017(1) SCC 148 and for other reliefs and the said writ petition is pending.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, while denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia contended that, the 3rd Respondent engaged the services of the petitioners as 'Work - charged' workers and attached them to Engineering wing of Devasthanam and continues to utilize the services whenever required and used to / arranged payment of wages through contractors, mode of payment has been changed creating separate account under the head 'petty supervision charges and the amount as required would be set apart at the rate of 2.5% on the estimated value of work. It is further stated that the very nature of employment and the very term 'work charged workers' signify that immediately after completion of work, the services of them would no longer be required. It is further stated that the nature of duties: assessed or measured in terms of volume and value of work and sensitivity of job as being discharged by the petitioner cannot be weighed and treated as similar in any respect with that of the duties as would be discharged by the regular employees and even remotely in the area of responsibilities no similarity can be drawn/visualized between the regular employees and the petitioners and viewed in the backdrop of the case, reliance is placed on 'Jagjith Singh's case (supra 1) seems to be misplaced and temporary employees can take recourse to principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and claim minimum pay scale on par with regular employees holding the same post: provided temporary employees fulfil the parameters as summarized in para 42 of the said judgment and it was observed in para 60 of the said judgment.