G.Hariprasad Naik vs. K.Vijayanand

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

CONTEMPT CASE No.2040 of 2023

ORDER :

The Contempt Case is filed against the respondents/ contemnors and punish them under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for their willful disobedience of nonimplementing the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Court in WP No.28407 of 2022 as modified in the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.1028 of 2022.

2. Heard Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel and Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. This Court vide order dated 06.09.2022 has disposed of the writ petition in W.P.No.28407 of 2022. The operative portion of the said order as follows:

^"Having regard to the facts and circumstances and without touching the merits of the case, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 27.07.2022 of the petitioners, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Jagjit Singh and others1, for payment minimum pay scale to the petitioners, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¹ 2017 (1) SCC 148

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs"

4. Thereafter, the respondents herein preferred an appeal vide W.A.No.1028 of 2022 before a Division Bench of this Court and the same was disposed of by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge. The operative portion of the said order as under:

"Writ petitioners are at liberty to submit appropriate representations before all the concerned authorities for redressal of their grievances within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such representations, the same e examined and appropriate orders be passed by the authorities concerned strictly in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter. It is also made clear that the Writ Petitioners are entitled to place on record the relevant judgments, if any, for consideration of the same by the authorities concerned.

Accordingly, the Order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby modified. There shall be no order as to costs."

5. Counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent denying all the averments made in the petition. It is stated that the claim of the petitioners and the issues thereon involves the disputed question of facts which shall be adjudged on full fledged trial/enquiry as upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar issue fell for consideration reported in 2001 (7) SCC pg.1. Admittedly, the nature of work discharged by the petitioners is not similar when compared with regular employees attached to the corresponding posts. This respondent is not having any of the posts which are

regular as stated by the petitioners and they never engaged against vacancy related to corresponding cadre of regular posts. It is further stated that non-payment of dues by APSPDCL in time resulted in enhancement of the Bank Guarantee/Letter of credit and even stoppage of supply to the APSPDCL by the generators for the subsequent month, which affected the uninterrupted supply of electricity as well as credibility of APSPDCL from imposing additional financial burden in the form of LPS and all these issues shall be taken into account which are important and necessary and in due consideration of the same the orders are issued duly rejecting the claim of the petitioners.

6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3 denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the APTRANSCO has received the representations from few outsourced workers i.e., one from Sri Md. Venatesh Babu and 30 others and another from Sri S.Mohammadali and 22 others and Sri T.Jayaramudu and 38 others engaged through third party Man Power Agencies as Shift Operators and watch and wards to provide minimum time scale comparable to the pot held by regular

employees is examined and a reply is also communicated to the petitioners vide letter dated 22.02.2023. Thereafter, the committee vide TOO Ms.No.632 in 2017 has considered the issues of equal pay to the regular employees based on judgment of Jagjit Singh's case and the committee observed that the outsourced workers are not entitled for equal pay with the regular employees on the findings of the said committee reads as under:

"….The outsourced works who claimed equal pay for equal work for outsourced workers in power utilities in various types of works have not satisfied the conditions stated in para 42 of the Judgment of Supreme Court of India in C.A No.213/2013, dated 20.09.2016, either with regard to the quality, sensitivity and responsibilities etc., of their services…"

Thereafter, the recommendations of the committee were sent to the State Government for appropriate decision. However, the State Government in its minutes, it was resolved that "the matter will be examined based on the report submitted by the Committee in this matter." Since the matter is being pursued at the Government level as it is commonly applicable to outsourced workers working in several wings of Government of A.P., resolved that the Chairman/APPCC will take it up with the Government as it is policy matter of Govt., of A.P.

It is further stated that, after careful examination of the representation of the petitioners, dated 27.6.2023, this respondent rejected the same on two grounds (i) the representation is not in line with the orders of this Court in W.ANo.1027 & 1028 of 2022 and (ii) though the representation cannot be decided on merits, as the same is not in line with the orders of this court in W.A.No.1027 & 1028 of 2022, prima facie, the same cannot be maintainable as the functions, duties and responsibilities assigned to petitioners are different from those that are discharged by regular employees.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in pursuance of the orders of this Court, the petitioners herein have submitted their representation dated 6.1.2023 to the respondents No.2 and 3, but the respondents willfully rejected the claim of the petitioners which amounts to contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the respondent concerned referred the committee report in the year 2017

which has examined all the issues in relation to extending minimum time scale by duly acknowledging the facts, issues and position of employees of APTRANSCO and also considered the contents of the Supreme Court judgments as well. Mere citing the previous similar instance does not mean pre-empted. He further submits that the respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioners on the ground that the nature of duties and employment of the petitioners are not one and the same from regular employees and the petitioners are not doing similar nature of duties on par with regular employees as stated in the order dated 27.06.2023. He further submits that, the prayers of the petitioners are liable to be rejected not only on the point of having no merits but also on the basic preliminary ground that the contempt petition suffers from suppression of facts and the malice on the part of the petitioners and the respondent never intend to violate the orders of this Court. Learned Government Pleader further submits that once an order has been passed in the Writ appeal and the order passed by the Single Judge is modified and the Writ Appeal is allowed, the order of the Single judge merges with the

order passed in the Writ Appeal. The doctrine of merger does not make a distinction between an order of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

9. In the case of "M. Santhi Vs. Mr. Pradeep Yadav and Another"² wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court held as follows:

"20. The purpose of law of contempt is to protect the machinery of justice and the interests of the public in order to protect these dual interests, unwarranted interference with administration of justice must be prevented. The power to punish for contempt is conferred on Courts for two reasons. Firstly, that the Courts may be armed with the power to enforce their orders, Secondly, they may be able to punish obstruction to the administration of justice. To ensure these objective, there are also constitutional provisions dealing with contempt of Courts, apart from Contempt of Courts Act. Under Article 215 of the Constitution of India a Court of record is a Court, the records of which are admitted to be evidentiary value and not to be questioned when produced before any Court. Such a Court enjoys a power to punish for contempt as its inherent jurisdiction. The impression created by the Court is that even if Article 129 and 215 were not there in Constitution the contempt owers of Courts of record would have been preserved. However the High Courts have to exercise his powers keeping in mind Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act".

The Hon'ble Madras High Court has clearly specified the

purpose and object in filing the Contempt Case as cited supra.

10. The contents of the counter-affidavit would speak the volume of the conduct of the respondents in not implementing the orders of this Court. This Court has granted several adjournments in this case at the request of

² Contempt Petition No. 377 of 2018, dated 11.04.2018 Madras High Court

learned Government Pleader for the respondents; so far, the respondents failed to comply with the orders of this Court by the respondents/ contemnors. Therefore, the acts of the respondents in not comply with the order of this court amounts to contempt of courts. Therefore this Court opined that respondents knowingly, willfully and deliberately disobeying the orders of this Court.

11. I must express my inability to agree. It is incumbent upon the respondents, more particularly, those who are holding senior position in Government, to ensure that the Orders of this Court are complied with promptitude, and within the time stipulated for its compliance. Any difficulty which they may have in complying with the order of this Court would require them to invoke this Court jurisdiction seeking extension of time to comply with the orders.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that 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.

13. As per the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of 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. There can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, as s to vest in them the right to claim wages on par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged Government employees holding the same post.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that, even though this Court passed orders to consider the representation of the petitioners and as it was modified by a Division Bench of this Court to consider the same by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Jagjit Singh (supra), the respondents willfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court in WP No.28407 of 2022 dated 6.9.2022 as modified in WA No.1028 of 2022 dated 22.12.2022 and thereby the

respondents are guilty of contempt and have rendered themselves liable for punishment under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

15. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the Contemnors/respondents No.2 and 3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees ONE Thousand only) each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) week. The Contemnors/respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to surrender before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on or before 27.07.2023; on such surrender, the Registrar (Judicial), is directed to remand them to jail for a period of one (01) month.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date : 21 -07-2023 Gvl

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

CONTEMPT CASE No.2041 of 2023

Date : 21 .07.2023

Gvl