The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioners' to count the pre- absorption service of the Petitioner on temporary capacity for commencement of qualifying:;ervice to sanction pension and other benefits as per G'O'Ms'No'156' Finance and Planning (FW.PEN .1) Department, dated 29-04-1983, pending order or orders as this Hon' ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI CH.GANESH Counselfor the Respondents: AGP FOR SERVICES-II The Court made the following: ORDER ,; :--:.c':ii:;1.:. "t,1t# / 3 SN, J wp]571_2019 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER: Heard sri ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2 as under: ......to issue an order or direction more pafticularly one in thenatureofWritofMandamustodeclaretheactionof therespondentsinnotcountingthepastservicerendered bythePetitionersinthecontingentestablishmentfromthe dateoftheirinitialappointmenttotillthedateof regularization for commencement of qualifying service as per G.O. Ms. No. 156 Finance and Planning (FW' PEN'1) Departmentdated29-04-lgS3forthepurposetosanction ofpensionbasedonthejudgmentofthisHonbleCourtin W.P. No.8201 of 2016 dt L7-03-2O16 and as per the ordersofthisHonbleCourtinW.P.No.lTT00of2016dt 20.O6.2Ot7 as highly illegal, arbitrary' unjust' unconstitutional against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play and prays to direct the respondents hereintocountthepre-absorptionserviceofPetitioners herein in temporary capacity in the contingent category for --4 € 4 SN. J \\p_2577 _2019 tl'e purpose of commencement of qualifying service for sarnction of pension and other benefits to the petitioners ht:rein and pass...".

3. !'he case of the oetitioner in brief as per the @ents made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in supoo!'t of the present writ petition is as under: The petitioner was initially appointed vide proceedings dated '--4.o4.1980 as sweeper. Thereafter the services of the petitioner were regularized on 28.08.2018 as per G.o.Ms.No.7g, Pancha'yat Raj and Rural Development (pts.IV) Department. Later, r:he chief Executive officer, ziila parishad, Karimnagar posted the petitioner as office Subordinate vide proc. dated 22.12.20L8. The services of the petitioner were regularized without counting the temporary service rendered by the petition,-'r from 1980 to 2018 against G.o.Ms.No.2l2, dated

22.4.t994 and G.o.Ms.No. 156, Finance and planning (F.w. PEN.1) Department dated 29.04.1983. Aggrieved by the action of the r,3spondents in not counting the past service rendered by the petitioner from the date of petitioner's initial appointment, the petitioner approached the court by filing the present writ petition. 5 SN, J wp 2577 _2019 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the averments made in the-affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition pertaining in particutar to the service rendered by the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner herein. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing 5. on behalf of the petitioner that the subject issue is squarely covered by the order of this court dated 24.LL.2O22 passed in W.P. No.7343 of 2O19 and therefore the petitioner herein is entitled for the same relief as extended to the petitioners in w.P. No.7343 of 2019.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, aopearinq on behalf of the respondents does not disoute the said submission made bv the learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the oetitioner. 6 SN. J wp_2577 _2019 7 - The relerant oortion of the order of this court in W.P. ltlo. 7343 of 2Ot9. dated 24.LL.2O22 n oarticular efntos. S to A & 10 to 1a ar "5. under identical circumstances, the Division Bench of the High court in w.p.No.B20L of 2oL6 dated 17.03.2016 rr:ferring to Rules 13 and t4 of the Andhra pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 which deal with the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the purpose of payment of pension held that the qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed with substantively or irr an officiating or temporary capacity. 6. Subject to the exceptions contained in Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 13 of the Rules a temporary employee shall furrther satisfy the conditions stipurated under Rule 14 of tlre Rules for counting his temporary service for pensionary br:nefits. Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra pradesh Revised Pt:nsion Rules, 1980 deals with the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the purpose of payment of pt:nsion which reads as under: "73. Commencement of oqalifvinq service: Subject to the provisions of the rules, quatifying service of a Government seruant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed ei,iher substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity: Provided that - (a) in the case of a Government servant in a class IV service or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent persionable post prior to the lvh November, 79'60, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen (15) years shall not count for any purpose; and : I i i i i i I i I i I I I 71 7 SN, J wp 2577 _2019 (b) in the case of a Government servant nocovered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen (18) years shatl not count, except for co m pen sa tio n g ratu itY.

14. Conditions subiect to which service oualifies' (1) The service of a Government servant shall not qualify duties are and pay unless his regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression service means service under the Government and paid by the Government from the Consotidated Fund of the State but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government."

8. Under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 2O.O6.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.L77OO of 2016 one Sri P. Dasharadham, approached the High Court for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ petition and the same was implemented by the respondents therein vide Lr.No.6O 47lCRP&RE/C-2 l2OL8? dated 10.1o.2o18 and also communicated the same to the petitioner thereunder vide letter Rc.No.B1O | 4t7O / 2OL5, dated 08.10.2()18.

10.InW.P.No.t425of2Ot9,undersimilar circumstances, the Division Bench of the High court considered the issue where the past services of the applicant prior to their regularization can be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. The Division Bench in its judgment dated 15.10.2019 referring to the i 8 SN. J wp_2577 20t9 judgments of the Apex court reported in (2oo1) 10 scc 473 sitate of Tamilnadu v. T.N. Registration Department Ministerial service Association at paras 9, 10 and t1 held hereunder: '9. similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the High court of ludicature at Hyderabad for the state of 1-elangana and the state of Andhra pradesh in state of rlndhra pradesh v. M. Raja Rao and also the Karnataka High court in B.H. Karnataka power Transmission Corporation Limited. 71- It is arso to be noted here that the orders passed by the Tribunal in o.A.No.6524 of 2014 and batch dated 14.11.2014 were not chailenged and they have become fiwl. Therefore, once the orders of the Tribunal are not cttallenged and have become final, there is no other optiin for the authorities except to imprement the same.,, ' 11. The Apex court in the judgment reported in (2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) in prem singh- v State of uttar Pradesh and others, at para 36 held al under: "i6. There are some of the emproyees who have not bercn regularized in spite of having'ren'dered the services for 30-40 or more years whireas they have o,ein sLtperannuated. As they have worked in the work_charged es'tablishment, not against any particurar project, t-heir se'rvices ought to have been regurarized under the G<tvernment instructions and even is pe, the decision of this court in sfate of Karnataka vers'us thmadevi rsli. Th'is Court in the said decision has taid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten viio without the cover of the court's order, as one-time measurq the services be regutarized of suci emptoyeei. ti the facts of the case, those emproyees who have'woi*ia for ten years or more shourd bee:n regutarized. It wc'uld not be proper to regutate them for consideration of 'have 4 9 SN, J wp_2577 _?019 regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the oension as if thev have retired from the reoular establishment and the services rendered bv them rioht from the dav thev entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as oualifvino service for ourpose of pension."

12. The iudgment dated 23.08.2O17 in Civil Apoeals No.1O8O6 of 2O17 with numbers 10805 of 2O17 and 1O807 of 2O17 reoorted in (2O19) 1O SCC 542. in Habib Khan v State of Uttarakhand at paras 5 and 7 it is observed as under: "6. The pari materia provision contained in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules had been struck down by a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab. The challenge by the State against the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was negatived by this Court. The matter came up for consideration before this Court, once again, in Punjab SEB versus Narata Singh. While dealing with the said question this Court in Para 25 of the report held that the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was perfectly justified in striking down Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules resulting in obliteration of the distinction made in the said Rules between "temporary and officiating service" and work-charged service on the said basis, this Court took the view that the period of work-charged service should be reckoned for purposes of computation of "qualifying service" for grant of pension. 7. As already observed, the provisions of Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations applicable to the State of Uttarakhand are pari materia with the provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, discussed above. If that is so, we do not see as to why the period of service rendered on work- charged basis by the appellants should not be counted for purposes of computation of "qualifying service" for grant of E- -t t0 SN, J wp-2517 ]019 f,ension. The pari materia provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the F'unjab Civil Services Rules having been interpreted and understood in the above manner by this Court in Narata S;ingh we do not find any room for taking any other view €xcept to hold that the appellants are entitled to reckon the period of work-charged service- for purposes of computation of "qualifying service for grant of pension We crder accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the irnpugned orders passed by the High Court." n tf e f:t 2tt 1 INaOaf alraalr, Daf i t? Tha hafar.a the Aoex Court Aoorieved bv the orders dated 23.O8.2l,L7 Dassed in Civil Aooeal No. 1O8O ot 2Ol7 fur Habib Khan v State of Uttarakhand was dismissed !v the Apex Court vide orders dated 16.O1.2018 and a similar view was taken bv the Apex Court in the lrdoment dated 18.O1.2O22 in the State of Guiarat ers v Talsib ai Dhaniibhai Pate! observ inq as firllows: "l.t is unfortunate that the State continued to take the sr:rvices of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entiUed to p,ension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an ernployee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but urrreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought nrrt to have taken such a stand. Irr the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to tl',e respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service. Hrlhc€, Lli, 17 and 18 which reads as under: the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.,, paras

14. Inai Jha rkhand udomen tofth e ADex Court in Stat of nd others ve us Jitendra K mar ,I 1l SN, J wp_2517 _2019 Srivastava and another reoorted in 2O13 (12) SCC 21O it was held that oension and qratuitv are not bountv, but orooertv within the meanino of Article 3OO-A of the Constitution of India. Paraqraohs 16 and 17 of the reoort states as under:

16. The fact remains that there is an imprimature to the Iegal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in "property". "Article 300-4 of the Constitution of India reads as under: "300-A. 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 b 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. L7. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be tern ed as "law" within the meaning of the aforesaid Article 300-A. 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 stat story 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."

8. The Judoment of Apex Court in Union of India vs. Avtarchand reoofted in 2O19 (3) ALD SC 32 in oarticular at oara Nos.15 to 18 are extracted hereunder. G.- - d t2 SN. J wp_2577 _2019

15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case including the written submissions fited on behalf of the apprellants, we find substance in the submission of the lear-ned counsel for the appellants.

16. In our considered opinion, the High Court, in the case at hanrJ also should have awarded compensation at the rate of -100o/o to each respondent alike the one awarded in othcrr case (CWP No. 3L27/2OO decided on O1.03.2OO7) whir:h had attained finality. L7. In fact, we do not find any justification to award corrpensation at the rate of 2OOo/o to the respondents whe,n in other identical case, the High Court awarded corrrpensation at the rate of lOOo/o to similarly placed wor,<ers.

14. Though, it was the discretion of the Courts/ Auttrority to award compensation with different perc:entage in every case but it was necessary to give reasons in support of award of such compensation. It was much more so when the High Court awarded compensation at the rate of 2ooolo to some workers and awarded at the rate of looo/o to other workers though similarly situated. This necessitated for giving of re:asons as to why compensation was being awarded at tire rate of 2OOo/o to one set of workers as agairrst the other set of workers at the rate of 100o/o wherr all were similarly placed. The High Court having failecl to give any reason while awarding compensation at two rates, it calls for interference in these appeals". 9 The Judome of Aoex Court in m Sahu Vs. state otf chattisqarh and another filed in civil Aooeal No.1254 of 2o18 dated 23.o3.2o18 in particular para Nos. tG to 22 are extracted hereunder. "16. In our considered opinion, once the State regularized the services 01'the appellant while he was in state services, the appellant ,,rr"ld il',ffi 13 SN, J wp.2577 2019 became entitled to count his total period of service for claiming the gratuity amount subject to his proving continuous service of 5 years as specified under Section 24 of the Act which, in this case, the appellant has duly proved. L7.In the circumstances appearing in the case, lt would be the travesty of justice, if the appellant is denied his legitimate claim of gratuity despite rendering "continuous service" for a period of 25 years which even, according to the State, were regularized. The question as to from which date such services were regularized was of no significance for calculating the total length of service for claiming gratuity amount once the services were regularized by the State.

18. It was indeed the State who took 22 years to regularize the service of the appellant and went on taking work from the appellant on payment of a meager salary of Rs.2776/- per month for 22long years uninterruptedly and only in the last three years, the State started paying a salary of Rs.ll,lo7l- per month to the appellant. Having regularized the services of the appellant, the State had no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of gratuity to the appellant which was his statutory right under the Act. It being a welfare legislation meant for the benefit of the employees, who serve their employer for a long time, it is the duty of the State to voluntarily pay the gratuity amount to the appellant rather than to force the employee to approach the Court to get his genuine claim. ' 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court which is legally unsustainable. It is really unfortunate that the genuine claim of the appellant was being denied by the State at every stage of the proceedings up to this Court and dragged him in fruitless litigation for all these years. 2O. Indeed, this reminds us of the apt observations made by the Chief Justice M.C. Chagla (as he then was) in the case of Firm Kaluram Sitaram vs. The Dominion of India (AIR 1954 Bombay 50). The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style of writing while deciding the case between an individual citizen and the State made the following pertinent observations : "Now, we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily reply on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even i :i;-, . . 3l ,##ffi*fl t4 SN. J wp_2577 _20t9 though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent -ludges, as an honest person."

21. These observations apply in full force against the State in this casr-' because just case of the appellant was being opposed by the State orr technical grounds. As a consequence, the appeal succeeds and is irllowed. Impugned judgment/order pdssed by the High Court (Single .ludge and Division Bench) are set aside and the orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority are restored with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the State to the appellant. Cost to be paid by the Statr-' along with the payment of gratuity amount. 2ll. The respondent-State is directed to release/pay the gratuity amount as determined by the controlling Authority within three months t:o the appellant".

10. 2O17 is extracted hereunder: "ln the tight of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that as the petitioners have been extended the minimum time scate, they are entitted to addition of increments from time to time irr the minimum time scate without being entitted to att other attowances which a regutar emptoyee is entitted. fhe learned Government Pteader for Services (Andhra Pradesh) submitted that the court may consider timiting the grant of annual grade increments to the petitioners to a reasonabte past period as, the retief of payment of arrears, if granted from the time o'' extension of the minimum time scate to the petitioners, woutd (:ause huge burden on the exchequer. -'hough in strict sense, the petitioners are entitted to att the arrears, keeping in view the fact that they have approached the Tribunal onty in the year 2013 and atso the public interest, we restrict the said benefit onty from the date of fiting of the said o-A. by the petitioners. The writ Petition is, accordingty, attowed in part to the extent indicated above. The respondents shatt revise the minimum time scate of pay of the petitioners by adding f / a-e .: -r 15 SN. J wP_2577 _2019 the annuat grade increments as and when they fett due from time to time. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.33252 of 2OL7 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous".

11. The retevant oortion of the Judoment of this Court extracted hereunder: In view of above, the 1't respondent-applicant is fully eligible and entitled to be converted into regular post of last grade but that was not done purposefully, wantonly due to the administrative reasons by the respondents therein for that the 1't respondent-applicant was put to irreparable loss. As per G.O.Ms.No.156, dated 29.O4.1983, previous part time contingent service of the worker was considered as full time contingent service and, accordingly, gave the benefit for the purpose of pensionary benefits' Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.156, dated 29-04.1983, is' fully applicable to the cause of 1't respondent herein. Accordingly, we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the Tribunal. consequently, the writ Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 01.10.2015 passed in O.A. No. 5624 of 2015' No order as to costs". r6 SN, J wp_2577 _2019

12. T,aking into consideration the observations of the High court and Apex court in the various Judgments referred to and extracte:d above, this Court opines that petitioner is entifled for consideration of petitioner's request for counting the past service rendere,J by the petitioner in the contingent establishment from the date of his initial appointment to till the date of regularization as per the Judgment dated t7.o3.2016 passed in w.p. No.B201 of 2016 and as per the orders of this court passed in w.p. No.17700 of 2016, dated 20.06.2017 and the observations in the various Judgments referred to and extracted above in accordance to law, within a reasonable period.

13. (a) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearin'g on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistanll Government pleader for appearing on behalf of the respondents (b) The contents of the judgment dated z4.L1,2oz2 passed inr W.P.No.7343 of 2O19. (c) Rules 13 and t4 of the Andhra pradesh Revised Pension ltules 1980 which ctearly indicate that qualifying r' /i t7 SN, J wp_2577 2019 servace of a Government Servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity and the fact as borne on record that temporary service shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of Pension under Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules 1980. (d) The observations of the Apex Court and Other Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:- i) The order of this Court, dated 24.t1.2O22 passed in W.P. No. 7343 of 2019. ii) (2001) 10 scc 473 iii)((zo2o) 1 scc (L&s) iv) (2019) 10 scc s42 v) 2o13 (12) scc 210 vi) The Judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated 17.03.2015 passed in W.P.No.82O1 of 2O16. vii) The Judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated 15.10.2019, passed in W.P.No.L425 of 2O19. viii) The Judgment dated 20.06.2017 passed in W.P. No.177OO of 2016. (e) The Judgment of Apex Court in Union of fndia vs. Avtarchand reported in 2019 (3) ALD SC 32 in i l8 SN. J wp-2571 2019 particular at para Nos.15 to 18 (referred to and extracted above.), (f) The Judgment of Apex Court in Netram Sahu Vs. St:rte of Chattisgarh and another filed in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2O18 dated 23.03.2018 in particular para Nos. 16 to 22 (referred to and extracted above), (g) The order of Division Bench of this Court dated

10.08.2:017 passed in W.P. No.26788 of ZOLZ (referred to and extracted above), (h) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para No's.4 to 10 of the present order. C l9 SN, J wp_2577 _2019 receipt of a coov of this order, in accordance to law, dulv takino into consideration the observations of the Apex Court and Others Courts in the various iu@ments (referred to and extracted abdve) and oass aporopriate rtrrfarc rlrrlrr a.rrylryrrrn aata rloricinn oetitioners. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Miscellaneous petitions, if Efly, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH' on this THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE \ //TRUE COPY// Sd/.P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,r' /a-L-/ SECTION OFFICER one Fair copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA (For Her LadYshiPs Kind Perusal) To

1. 11 LRCopies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

4. The eri-ncipit Secretary, Panchayathraj Departmeflt, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Governrnent of Telangana.

5. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Government of Telangana.

6. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. 7. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate IOPUC] g. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad TOUTI

9. Two CD Copies PSK.iPMK Oln)r aRu_ HIGH C:OURT DATED i 1410812025 ORDEFI WP.No.2577 of 2019 d ? CC TODAY 'f*+' o.(-) I"rii 3 c 1 B APtl zrlzfi * -l ALLOWING THE WRIT PET]TION WITHOIUT COSTS K3 r+l+(zc