The High Court · 2025

Heard Smt. Kiranmayee, leained counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, tearned Government pleader for Finance and planning appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Sri D.Rama Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behatf of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and learned Government Pleader for Industries appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.7 to 9. 2 The oetitioners aD D roa ched this Court seekinq the Draverasun der: "...To issue a WRIT OF CERITIORARI calling for all the connected records including Circular Memo No. 8242-A/329/AUHRM_ VII/2OL7, dated 22.07.20t7 and Circular Memo No. 1206/476/A7/HRM-VII/20|7, dated 73.L0.20L7 of the 1.t Respondent wherein the absorption of the petitioners as surplus and redeploying them in Government Departments by invoking orders issued in GOMs. No. 24 Finance (SPMC) Department dated 9.1.2002 has been cancelled and declared null and void ab initio as it is against the orders issued in 2 ,; GOMs. No. 24 and the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and also Act 14 of L997 and quash the same as illegal, improper, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India and principles of Natural lustice and declare the action of the 4th & 5th Respondents in returning the pay bills of the 2nd & 3nd Petitioner and the action oF the 6rh Respondent in directing the 9th Respondent to claim the 1't Petitioner's salary under HOA 280/284 and not 0f0/011 without any Notice to the Petitioners as illegal, improper, unjust, violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and principles ol Natural lustice and pass such order o. orders as deemed fit in the interesl of j ustice. "

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners were denied all retirement benefits, including pension, gratuity, and arrears, by the Respondents' Despite being redeployed to the District Employment Office and working there until retirement, the respondents have not released the retirement benefits namely pension, gratuity, arrears of PRC, Group Insurance claimed and D'A arrears to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ Petition. PERUSED THE RE ORD: 'ffi/';r)' .;/.. -., '../ 3

4.7 rtio of n f t 2 18i reu n er: e 7 ffid vit w No. 35 "It is further informed that brought to my notice the names of all such employees;ho were absorbed in StvlpCs have been removed from the rolls of the Corporation. The E.p.F., account of the employees have been closed. Their names were also not considered under bifurcation of united A.P.S.C.R.i.C. Ltd., by the Shieta Bhide Committee. Therefore the entire issue has been submitted to the government through the Lr-No.E1IRIC /Admn/ t32g/2079/50+. - 26.04.2019 by the Managing Director and requested the ApC & principal Secretary to Government to Agriculture & Cooperation Depaftm_ent to kindly send a suitable reply to the Finance Department (HRM-VII), Department to pay the retirement benefits to all the ex-employees of A.P.S.C.R.I.C. Ltd., who are retired from seivice in SMPCs of various Telangana Districts and continue all the ex-employees oinpscRtc r_t0., iftraoao who are still working in various SMpcs of Telangana Districts in iniluding payment of'sataries of every month in terms of G.O.lr4s. No./24, dated 09.07.2002, as all such staff have joined in SMpcs as per approvals of the competent Authority on permanent absorption basis. After perusal of the proceedings mentioned above from time to time I am of the opinion that since the names of all such employees who were absorbed in SMPC have been removed from the rolls of the corporation. The E.p.F., account of the employees have been closed and their names were also not considered under bifurcation of united 4 A.P.S.C,R.I.C. Ltd., under IX Schedule Institutions by the Shiela Bhide Committee and all the employees deployed from APSCRIC Ltd', have been allocated employees-ID numbers and new GPF Accounts were opened in the name of each and every employee deployed to SMPC, Ranga Reddy and other District from the Corporation and have been completely detached from the Corporation and further certain ex-employees of the Corporation who were retired while working in SMPC have been paid retirement benefits (earned leave encashment etc) by the employee after the CorDor tion is not deployment to SMPC, liable to settle the reti rement benefits to retired EMDI ovees of the istrict mplo exch a nqe, Ra nqa Reddv Di trict who were em olovme nt absorbed exch anqe, Ranoa Reddv districtonDe rmanent abso rotio n ba sis. " distri m 5 The rel va nt rtio n ud ment of this W.P.N .1485 f st Au rep rted in 2O23 hereu nd er: TJETETN No.1 ted 4.tL. *K.M thaiah Vs. Distri 22 K amma hers" 18i Au (1) ALD 387 (TS), lse xtracted "17. in a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter oF State of Jharkhand and others v' Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in 2013 (12) SCC 210 it was held that pension and gratuity ire'not bounty but property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India' Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the report state as under: 5 "16. The Fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a righC in "property". Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under: "300-4. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.-No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.

17. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as "law" within the meaning of the aforesaid Article 300-4. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory Rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these Rules, the position would have been different. ""

6. The relevant portion of the orderofth is Court

4.O 24 .P.N 7L9 021 i extracted hereunder: 6 .- S r t "12. Having regard to the rival contention nd material on record, this Court finds that for a a the petitioner was in itia llY practical Pu rPoses, appointed in resPondent No .6 orga nization and subsequently been dePuted to respondent No.3 in the year 20 13. The n ren derinq hiss ervtces from the vear 2013 with responden No.3. Thou h the oetitioner has qlven the insta nces of 6 emolovee of e while APSCRIC, Who have been deDUted to resDOndent No.3 orqanlz atio n and have reti ment benefits. there ts no bee n Da! deni al of he samebvthe res onde ts in th err the said cou nter affidavit. Th erefo llowed enca shmentof em lovee s have been leave as er their entitlement the oetitio ner is el ioible f r the ame. The re oondents cannot ta ke a different standinth e cas the oetitioner alone while Dermittin o relief to . The judgments oth r simil rl relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are on the eligibility of a person to recerve pension or gratuity upon superannuat ion. In this case, this Court finds that the respond ents are not denying the eligibility of the petitione r to the retirements benefits such as g ratu ity, leave encashment and Pension but are only saying that the petitioner is eligible for such benefits from iis Parent organization i.e', respondent No.6. Admittedly, the respondent No 6 is financially weak and after the bifurcation of the States into Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the name of the petitioner has not been included in the list of employees of respondent No'6 for allocation to the respective States. Admittedly, his name has been considered as a Government servant. At this stage, the respondents cannot take a stand that petitioner is only an employee of respondent No'6 and therefore retirement benefits have to be settled by respondent No.6 alone. This stand of respondents is not sustainable. Therefore, res ondent Nos.1 to5a 7 e G vernm nt the emol ovee of resoondent No.3 and settle his reti rement benefits such as qratuitv, r rm ths r." fr mth da w thin ex di t t

7. The relevant Dortion of therm uqn M o o.82 2-A 9 A H -VI 2 Circ

22.07.2077 is extracted here u n der: "5. In this context, all depa rtments/District Collectors are informed that Government have issued detailed guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMPC) Depaitment dated 09.01.2002 for redeployment and. absorption of surp-lus work-charged establishment and surplus staff in different categories of posts in Government Departments into existing vacancies of other departments and also the powers were delegated to District Collectors for deployment oF such resources in the categories lower than zonal, multi zonal and state cadre posts. These ordeis are obviously not applicable to absorption of employees in public Sector Undertakings, Societies, or other orga n izations/bodies under Government departments. Declaring the employees of Ap State Co-operative irrigation Corporation Limited as surplus and redeploying them in Government departments Oy invo[ing orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMpC) Department dated:09.01.2002 is againit the orders issued in the said G.O. and the piovisions of Act 2 oF 1994 and also Act 14 of 1997 and hence null and void abinitio.

6. Therefore, such orders, if any, issued by departments/District Collectors allotting 8 surplus employees from AP State Co-operative Irrigation iorporation Limited or similar public i".[or undertakings, societies, or other organizations / bodies etc., to Government de-partments would be in contravention of G.b.us.lto.z+, Finance (SMPC) Department dated:09.01.2002 as well as Act 2 of 1994 and Act 14 of 1.997, and hence null and void ab initio' 7. Hence all the Departments and the District Collectors concerned are instructed to cancel such orders if any issued and repatriate such persons to their parent organizations immediately, besides -' initiatlng disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officials in ierms of section 6 of Act 2 of 1994 and also recover the loss occurred to the Government due to such illegal appointments, after duly fixing the responsibility for such illegal orders. B. It is also clarified that such persons of public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations / bodies etc., who were absorbed int-o Government Departments in violation oF the orders issued G'O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMPC) Department dated:09.01.2002 and the provisions of Act 2 of 7994 and also Act 14 of 1997 are not eligible for any benefits such as pension, gratuity, coirmutation of pension and compassionate appointments etc., on par with the Government employees in Government Departments' Such employees are eligible only for the benefits which are available in their parent organizations and such benefits have to be paid by their parent orga nizations onlY.

9. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the Director of Works Accounts and the Pay and Accounts Officer, Hyderabad shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the responsible officers/staff for admitting the bills in violation of the Section-s of Act 2 of 1994." IHBT/ 1 :gfrir , ,$ -,r /. 9

8. The relevant D o rtion oft etm uqned Circu Iar N .L2 47 1 r 20L7 RM- L3.LO.2077 rs extracted here u nder: "4. All the Heads Depa rtm en ts/District Collectors are directed return the service registers/LPCs of the surplus staff of Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, soiieties, o. other organizations / bodies e[c., who were allotted to Government departments in contravention of G.O.Ms. No.24. Finance (SMpC) Department dated 09.01.2002 as well as Act 2 of 1994 and Act 14 of 1997, to their parent Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other orga n izations/bod ies etc., so as to enable them to claim their emoluments.

5. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the Director of Works Accounts and the pay and Accounts Officer, Hyderabad are directed not to honour the pay bills of the surplus employees of Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations / bodies etc., who were deployed/allotted to Government departments in contravention of G.O.Ms. No.24, Finance (SMPC) Department dated 09.01.2002 as well as Act 2 of 1994 and Act 14 of 7997." 9 e rel van rti n t.e, ra r hN .22 of he u men of A Cou 15 132 in "Devi and anot her Vs Gu arat a nd others". is extracted hereunder: ultiol Stat "22. We find nothing in the present case on the basis of which there could possibly be room to 10 '\:' say that it would be inequitable to ho-ld the State Government to its promise. Out of 108 TRCs issued under the Scheme, the burden that the Government was well aware and thought that it could comfortably bear, only 19 or 20 units have been established and are functional' In any case, the impact of incentives so offered under the Scheme and the consequential burden must have been weighed carefully when such promise was made and the Scheme was formed' We may respectfully refer to the following observations of this Court in S.V.A. Steel Re-Rolling Mills Ltd' v' State of Kerala [(2014) 4 SCC 186] to which one of us (Anil R. Dave, J.) was a party: (SCC p' 194, para 30) r ca pa citv "3O. Bef re lavtnq down anv ool rcv which would oive ben efits to its s tate must think abo ects the qlve the benef its. Without r r te houl f all her leva tha woul a be tn violation of the Drr ncl Dles of r mrs unfair Statenottoacta oer its Droml e. o nd moral on lbutitw the D DIS ssr N AND ONCL UIO

10. This Court takes note of the fact as borne on record that for an identical prayer as in the present Writ Petition on an earlier occasion W'P'No'27719 of 2O21 had been filed by one T.Jogal Reddy and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide its order, dated 04.O6.2024 directing the respondent Nos'1 to 5 / ,r€r./ -dfrW r -, 11 thereunder to treat the petitioner thereunder as a Government Servant i.e., the employee of respondent No.3 thereunder i.€., the District . Coflector, Rangareddy District and settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner there under such as Gratuity, encashment of leave, pension etc., in accordance with rules, expeditiousfy, preferably within a period of four (O4) months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order, dated 04.O6.2024.

11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also does not dispute the submission made by the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the present Writ petition could be disposed of in similar lines as per order, dated 04.06.2024 passed in W.p.No.277L9 ol 2021 (referred to and extracted above). L2. rt is however Dertinent to brinqonr cord, oara 3 a avit fi b e d the same is xtracte hereu n ert- * I submit that subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, we have acquired information with reqard to L2 pensionary benefits being granted to similarly -placed persons through Right to Information Act, 2005 and also information with regard to surplus employees of erstwhile APSRIC being absorbed in various government departments on permanent basis' I submit that we are now filing the said documents as Additional Material Papers in the Writ Petition' Therefore, we are filing this petition to receive the following as Additional Material papers. Sl.No. Description of the Document 1 2 3 4 Copy of the Letter No.B/ASP/V class/2020, dated

09.09.2020 Copy of the Letter No.A2lRTi/r34/2020, dated 24.09.2020 Copy of the Letter No.C2/RrI/462/202 0, dated 24.09.2020 Copy of the Letter No.1210/MD/ROC/Admn /2020- 2L dated 05.10.2020

13. A bare perusat of the above referred material documents filed by the petitioners in support of petitioners reply affidavit clearly indicates the fact as borne on record that pensionary benefits admittedly had been granted to similarly placed persons like the petitioners. Hence, this Court opines that petitioners herein are also entitled for grant of similar benefit as per law. w, ,,)/: 13 L4. T kin I sid r a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The contents of the impugned Circular Memo No.A242-A/329 / At/HRM-vrI/ 2OL7, 22,07.2017 (referred to and extracted above) d) The contents of the impugned Circular Memo No.L2O6 / 47 6 / AL / HRM-yIt / 2OL7, dated L3.LO.2O t7 (referred to and extracted above) e) The observations of the Apex Court and Other Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:- i) 2023 (1) ALD 387 (TS) ii) The order of this Court, dated O4.O6.2O24 passed in W.P.No.277L9 of 2O2t. iii) 201s (9) scc 132 f) The specific averments made at para No.3 of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners (referred to and 14 :.4 extracted above) and the contents of the material documents filed along with the reply affidavit i'e', letters, dated O9.Og.2O2O, 24.09.2O2O, 05'10'2020 and 24.09.2O20 (referred to and extracted above)' The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to consider the request of the petitioners for issuance of appropriate orders for payment of retirement benefits namely pension, gratuity, arrears of PRC, Group Insurance claims and DA arrears along with interest for the period of the work done by petitioners in the office of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2O15 (9) SCC 132 in "Devi Multiplex and another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others" and also the judgments of this Court (referred to and extracted above) without reference to the impugned Circular Memo No.8242-A1329/AL/HRM-VIIl2Ot7, dated 22.07.2OL7 and the impugned Circular Memo W' r:sflw,/' xffig ' -/ /. \ T 15 No.12O6 / 47 6 / At / HRM_VII / ZO L7 | dated 13. 10 .ZO L7 | within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners herein.

15. The respondent Nos.4 to 6 are further directed to consider the request of the petitioner. a)To continue to receive the salary bills of the petitioners and b) For pay the same, including the arrears under HOA O1OIO11 and not under HOA 2aO/2A4 in accordance to law and pass appropriate orders accordingly. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, iF any, pending in the Writ petition shall also stand closed. Note : That for being mention'in l.A.No.1 of 2025 filed for addition of sentences in page No.15 at Para No.15 extracted there under. The same is added and amended forthwith, as per the Court Order, dated O1-O7 -2O2i in lA.No.'l of 2025 inW.P.No.17B7of 2019. t t SD/-V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR { { I nI . I I This Amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on'10-06-2025. //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Hyderabad, State of I I I t To 1 2 3 4 5 t) 8 o 1 The Principal Secretary, Finance Dept., Secreta Telanqana. The District Collector, Warangal District. . The District Employment Officer, Warangal District. . The District Treasury Officer, Warangal Rural, Warangal District. . The Deputy Director, DTO, Warangal (Urban), Warangal District. . The Sub Tieasury Officer, Warangal East, Warangal Urban District. . The Regional Deputy Director, Handlooms and Textiles, Warangal. . General lvlanager, District lndustries Centre, Warangal- . The Principal, Government lTl (Girls), Mulugu Road, Warangal Urban District O.The Manaling Director, Telangana State Coopelative Rural lrrigatio_n Corporatio-n Llmited, 5-10-193;1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Opposite Public Gardens, Hyderabad - 500004. '1 1 . One CC to SIVT. K.KIRAN MAYEE, Advocate [OPUC] 12.One CC to SRI D.RAMA KRISHNA, SC FOR GWMC [OPUC] 13.Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 1 4. Two CCs to GP FOR INDUSTRIES, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

15.Two CD Copies. BSK s I I ! I I I I t !' !: I h t I i I i l I I I HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 0110712025 AMENDED ORDER WP.No.1787 ot 2019 CC TODAY ., i'.E S r,,1 r6 1\ J2 tljc 2025 * l-) {+ ,+( \ t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS crq'4 b- I1tg12(