V. Lakshmi And 3 Others v. The State Of Telangana And 5 Others

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.14352 of 2019 ORDER:

This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

2.

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not granting the minimum time scale of pay i.e., Rs.13,000/- - Rs.40,270/- applicable to the post held by the petitioners as Attender/Ayah/Cook on par with the regular employees in spite of written representation, dated 12.02.2019, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and sought a consequential direction to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of minimum time scale of pay applicable to the post of Attender/Ayah/Cook on par with the regular employees.

3.

Heard Sri C. Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-II. 4.

It has been contended by the petitioners that they are working on daily wage basis as Attenders/Ayahs/Cooks with the respondents and the petitioners have been discharging their duties to the best satisfaction of their superiors and every one concerned. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they are discharging the duties of regular employees, the respondents are not granting minimum time scale. In those set of circumstances, the petitioners have submitted a representation to the respondents seeking minimum

time scale of pay. Acting on the said representation, the 6th respondent has forwarded proposals to the 4th respondent, who is the competent authority to grant minimum time scale of pay, and the 4th respondent is not passing any orders on the proposals submitted by the 6th respondent. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposals submitted by the 6th respondent in accordance with the rules.

5.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had submitted that the case of the petitioners would be considered and the 4th respondent would pass appropriate orders on the proposals submitted by the 6th respondent in accordance with the rules. 6.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposals submitted by the 6th respondent in accordance with the rules, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 12th July 2019 mar