The Secretary, Zilla Grandalaya Samstha, Nalgonda v. M.Srinivas Rao, S/O.Ramaiah, 48 Years

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK W.P.No.26866 OF 2015 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Aggrieved by the order dated 29-04-2014 passed in O.A.No.3232 of 2014 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the present writ petition is filed. 2.

Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners and Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 45.

3.

It is the case of the petitioners that the un-official respondents are contingent workers and they are working only for few hours in a day and they were claiming wages in terms of G.O.Rt.No.841, dated 28.11.2011 and when the petitioners have not extended the wages in terms of the said G.O., the un-official respondents have approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.3232 of 2014 and the Tribunal vide order dated 29.04.2014 disposed of the said O.A. by following its earlier order dated 11.12.2012 in O.A.11076 of 2012, which was also

confirmed by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2009 in W.P.No.1045 of 2007. Hence, the present writ petition. 4.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners had contended that the order dated 11.12.2002 passed in O.A.No.11076 of 2012 is altogether different and it has no application in the present O.A. preferred by the un-official respondents. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 5.

Learned counsel appearing for the un-official respondents had contended that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A. in favour of the un-official respondents by following its earlier order dated 11.12.2002 in O.A.No.11076 of 2012 and the same was also confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.1045 of 2007. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A. in favour of the un-official respondents and moreover, the unofficial respondents are seeking wages in terms of the policy of the State vide G.O.Rt.No.841, dated 28.11.2011. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that except stating that the order dated 11.12.2002 passed in O.A.No.11076 of 2012 has no application in the O.A. filed by the un-official respondents, the petitioners have not chosen to demonstrate as to how the order passed in the earlier O.A. is not applicable in the O.A. filed by the un-official respondents. Moreover, this Court has not suspended the operation of the order passed by the Tribunal, which would mean that the order passed by the Tribunal has been worked out itself. At this point of time, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. More so, when the Tribunal has merely directed the petitioners to extend the pay scales as specified in G.O.Rt.No.841, dated 28.11.

2011 and when the un-official respondents were claiming the relief based upon the proceedings of Director of Public Libraries dated 03.10.2017, it would mean that petitioners in principle have decided to extend the pay scales as set out in G.O.Rt.No.841 dated 28.11.2011.

Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

7.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ______________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 06.02.2023 rkk