Court in the case of Prem Singh v. State of L.lttar Pradesh and others in Civil Appeal No

G O.Ms.No.'156, Fitrance and Planning (FW.PEN.1) Department, dated 29104/1983 forthwith. Counsel for the Petitiorters:SRl. CH GANESH Counsel for the Resporrdent NO 1: GP FOR SERVICES ll Counsel for the Resporrdent NO 2,3 : AGP FOR SERVICES I CounselfortheRespondentNo4:SRI.KISHoRERAoPUSKURUS.cFoRTS ZILLA PARISHADS, The Court made the following: ORDER ,.1 .t .l HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITI ON No.3 49 F2f)23 ORDER: . Heard Sri. Ch. Ganesh, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assastant Government pleader for Services_ff, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, tearned Assistant Government pleader for Services_I, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and 3, and Sri Kishore .Rao Puskuru, learned Standing Counsel for TS Zilla Parishads, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, 2 Th e a ro h Cou s Drav erasu der: "...to issue a wit order or direction more particularly one in the. nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not counung the past temporary service rendered by the petitioner in the contingent establishment from the date of his initial appointment on 1976 to till 2018, for computation of qualifying service by reckoning contingent service rendered by the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No. 156, Finance and planning (FW.pEN.1) Department. dated 29.04.1983, for the purpose to sanction of pension and Gratuity on even of retirement of petitioner by applying principle laid by Hon,ble Supreme 2 SN, J \\ I', 1949 2021 Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of L.lttar Pradesh and others in Civil Appeal No 6798 of 2019 and batch dt 2,.9.2019, (2019) 10 SCC 516), ancl in tl-re r:ase of Habib l(han Verses State of Uttarakhand zind others in Civ l<l Appeal No.10806 of 2Ol7 and batch dt 23 '0t\ '2t)17 ' (20::9) I (\ SCC 542, along with orders-in Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2018, dt : 16.02.3028 in (2019 10 SCC ri45) follcwed :y Division Bench of this Hon'ble (lourt in E P' No.13201 0f 2016, dated 17.o3.2016, and irr w P' No. t7700 of 2016 dated 20.06.2017, as highly illr:gal' arbitrary', unjust, u ncon stitutiona I against the prin(;lples of ratural justice, equity and fair play and p-ays t'c rJirect the respondents herein to count the p-e-absorption serrrice of petitioner herein in temporary ca pacity' irr the conting(rnt establishment for the purpose of computation of qualilying service for sanction of pension and Grat.uity' other retirement benefits and by applying the prirciple laid by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad ir the ca:;e of Smt. tirishna Bembi Vs. appellate aut.hority' 'lt : 25.05.2015, to the petitioner herein under Article 1'11 of Constitution of India and pass. "' f Der the 3. The cas averments madebv the oetitionerint e affi avit fi led bv the pgtitioner in suDport of the Dresent wd!-Detition inb ief e is as undet-i 7 J SN, J wP t949 2023 The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents to count the pre-absorption service of petitioner herein in temporiry capacity in the contingent establishment for the purpose oF computation of qualifying service for sanction of pension and Gratuity, other retirement benefits and by applying the principles laid by Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt.Krishna Bembi Vs. Appellate Authority, dated 25-05-2015 to the petitioner herein under Article l4l of Constitution of India. 4, It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 24.11.2022 passed in W.p. No.7343 of 2019 and therefore the petitioner herein are entitted for the same relief as extended to the petitioners an W.p. No.7343 of 20L9.

5. The le rned Assistant Governm ent Pleader, ADDEarino on behalfoft her e oonde nts does not I I 4 SN, J wt, l919 2023 d isoute th said sub I SSt tI be alf on madebv the ea-I!!cd f e n er.

6. D ortion of he order of this Court in W.P No.-2943 of 2019, dated 24 DA ra Nos 8&1 o to 14 are extracted here u nder. in pa1.tte_ular ".Jfoy"u *5. Under identical circumstances, the Divisicn Bench 9r_ l,!" High Courr in W.p.No.B2br or. jOt.o OutuO 77.C'3.2016 referring to Rules 13 and f+ oitnu ,qndhra Pradesh Revised pension Rules, 1980 whicl-r rle;rl with the qualifying service of a tempora.V lor the purpose of payment of pension held that the qualifying service of a Government Servant shall commenc:: from lhe qale he takes charge of the post to whilh tre is rirst appc,inted with substantively or in an officiat ng or tempora -r7 capacity. 6. Sr.rbject to the exceptions contained in Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 13 of the Rules a temi)orary employet: shall further satisfy the conditions s1ip,:lated under Rule 14 of the Rules- for counting lris tlmporary servi:e frtr pensionary beneFits. Rules 1i and f + cf the Andhra Pradesh Revised pension Rules, 1980 dilals with the cuali'ying service ot a tempora.V bmpfoyee for the purpose of payment of pension which reads; as under: "1.) m en m t f a Subje'ct to the provisions of the rules, qua I ifying s,::rviCe of a ()ove'rnment servant shatt commence l'rom thc) date he takes charge of the pos t to which he is first ppointec' either substantively or tn an officiating or a emporaa/ capacity: t, Provided that - 5 SN, J wP 3949 2023 (a) in the case of a Government servant in a Ctass IV service or post who hetd a lien or a suspendid tien on a permanent persionabte post prior to the 1lh November, 196 0, service rendered before attainin g the age of sixteen (16) years shall not count for any purpose; and (b) in the case of a Government servant nocovered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen (18) years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity. t e

14. on (1) The service of a Government servant shalt not qualify duties are and pay unless his regulated by the or under conditions determined by the Govern ment, Govern ment. (2) lor 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 qualifying service by the Government.,, 7 7 t t o1 h lvt on Bench vt P. o1 e n .82 b Tri unal ha o e r r e a Rul n d 1 19 L4 aPr de Revi dP ston 8. Under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 2O.O6.2017 passed in W.p.lvo.1,77OO ot 2O16 one Sri p. Dasharadham, approached the High Court for the relief as prayed for'in the present Writ petition and the same was implemenied by the respondents therein vide Lr.io.6O47 /CRP&-RE/C_ 2/2OL8, dated 1O.1O.2O1g and also communicated the lame to the petitioner thereunder vide letter Rc.No.B1O/4tZO / ZOLS, dated O8. 1O.2018. _=_qr 6 SN. ] \\ P l9l9 2023 the High services

10. Iln W.P.No.1425 of 2OL9, similar circumstances, the Division Bench of Court of the considered the issue where the past appticant prior to their regularization can be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. The Division Bench irn its judgment dated 15.10'2019 referring to the judgments of the Apex Court reported in (2OO1) 10 SCC 473 Stilte of Tamil V. T.N. Registtation Department Ministerial Service Association at paras 9, 1O and 11 held hereunder: "9. Similar view was taken by a D'ivision 'Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for t,\e State of Tel.tngana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in State of AnChra Pradesh V. M. Raia Rao and also the Karnataka High Court in B.H. Karnataka Power Tra n s r,1 i ssi o n Co rpo ratio n Li m ited. .lO. In view of the iu ments of the ADex Ccturt and other Hioh Courts referred to above' we f the view that the Dast servrce . of the ant, who is the resoondent herein. orior to a his-leoularization. has to be considered fof-lhp-pt I n r benefi .t 1. It is also to be noted here that the orders passe(t by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6524 of 2074 and batch dated 14.11.2014 were not challenged and they have become final. Therefore, once the orclers of the Tribunal are not challenged and have bec:onte final, th=re is no other option for the authctrities except to impler,nent the same." 11.. 'Ihe Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Singh v State nf Uttar Pradesh and others, at para 36 held as under: "-]6. There are some of the employees: w'ho have nc't been regularized in spite of having rendered the servic<:s for 30-40 or more years whereas ttrey have be'en :;uperannuated. As they have worked in the work- chargefi establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been re':Tularized ",,.;] ) 7 SN, J wP 3949 2021 under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3) 1 1. This Court in the said decision has taid down that in case services have beei rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measuret the services be regutarized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more shoutd have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of 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. Thev shall be entitled to receive the ension as if thev have retired from the reoular establishment and the services rendered bv them rioht from the dav thev entered the work-charoed es blishment shall be counted as oualifuino service for DUTDOSe ension."

12. The iudqment dated 23.Oa.2OL7 in Civil Aooeals No. O8O6 of 2O17 with numbers 1O8O5 of 2Ol7 and 1O8O7 ot 2OL7 reDorte d in (2019) 10 SCC 542, in Habib Khan v State of Uttarakhand at oaras 6 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 FuJl 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- t i 8 SN. J \\'t 39 t9 2023 -- -' .l chargecl service on the said basis. this Court took the vierv that the period of work-charged service shr:uld be recl<one'd for purposes oF computation of "qLralifyinE ser,rice' for grant of pension. 7. As already observed, the provisions of Regulation 370 of the Civi Siervices Regulations applicable to the State of Uttarakh;tnd are par merteria 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 th-e period of service renCered on work-charged basis by the i:ppellants should not be counted for purposes of :omputation of "qualifying service" for grant of pension. The pari mal-eria provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules having been interpreted and understood in the above manner by this Court in Narata Singh we do not find any room for taking any other view except to rold that the appellants are entitled to recllon the period of work-charged service for purposes of conrputation of "qualifying service for grant of ;:ension We ord:r accordingly, allow these appeals and srtt aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court." 13. The Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2O18 filed orieved bv the orders before the ADex Court dated 23.O8.2OL7 Dassed in Civil Aooeal No. 10806 of 2OL7 in Habib Khan v State of Uttarakhand was dismissed bv the Aoex Court vide orders dated 16.01.2018 and a similar view m n dated 18.O1.2()22 tn the State of Guiarat and others v Talsibhai D aniibhai Patel obser follows: A ex Court in the k n h "It is unfortunate that the State continued tc, teke the ser'r'ice:; of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 3t) years anc th,3reafter now to contend that as thel :;ervices rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensiona ry benefit. The State cannot be perrnitted to take the benefit of its own \^/r,)ng. To tak3 the Services continuously for :10 years and thereaF.er to contend that an employee who has rendere d 30 years continues service shall not be eligible .' : ,- rli. a ., 9 SN. J wP 19,19 2021 for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a sta nd. In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who- has retired after rendering more than 30 years service. Hence, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed.,, Paras 15, t7 and 1B which reads as under:

4. ln Jharkhand nd others ver us Jitendra K mar Srivastava a nd anot er reDorted in 2 13 (12) scc 2to it was eld that Densron and oratuitv a bountv. but roDertv within the mean inq of Article 3t)o-A oft he Constituti a-P rao raohs 16 e urt i State on rlf Indi h A ex und r L7 f

16. The fact remains that there is an imprimature to the legal 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.

17. 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 300-4. On the basis of ?F,IIEEtrIF l0 SN, J wr 1919 2021 such a .ircular, which is not having fo'ce of law, the upii"rri.i .unnot withhold even a part of perrsion or liutrit, As we noticed above, so far as stat story Rules 5.. .on."rn"d, there is no provislon for taritlrholding Had there perrsion or gratuity in the given situation . i,r".,n . ny sJch provision in these Rulers, the positlon would lrave been different. " 7 Takinq into consi de ration: (a) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing rrn behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistalrt Government Pleader for appearing on behalf of the respondents' (b) The contents of the judgment dated

24.L1.2022 passed in W.P.No.7343 of 2O19' (c) Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Fradesh Revisecl Pension Rules 198O which clearly indicate that qualifying service 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 1.3 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules 1,980. 7 II d) The Courts in observations of the Apex the judgments (referred SN. J wP 3949 2023 Court and Other to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:_ i) The order of tl ?l"l_.g_.' w.E. N-". ;l',il :?iljindated 24.11.2r,22 .il) (2OO1) 1O scc 473 Irr)((2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) lj],',',T?l#,i.".',i,l' T:,3i"',";";,:trT ;: *:l^.; #]Xli":,]: f','.f ; S[ *i1*lix!:T"#.,1 :::"?i:,,,r *i;: ;: *1' fi The Writ petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner to process the pension proposals of the petitioner for issuance of the pension payment sanctioning the pension and pensionary benefits by duly computing the service from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner for the purpose of sanction of pension, within a period of three (O3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance to law, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court and Others Courts in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) t I ':,t -) SN. J \\r ) 1919 2021 and pass appropriate orders. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Tht: miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PAD MANABHA REODY iE PU-TY REGIST :E becttott oFFlcER Department' Telangana liecretariat' Finance and Planning DePadrnent' l( 1 The Principa I Secretary'.P-anchayathraj ' H;;;,;b;a The State of relansana 2 rhe state-or reran-s-ana-re3r:lj,L::i"?r%itffiot&roo%i,"*mr:nr' 3. The Commir;siorer of School Education Department' Telephone Bhavan Road' 4. The Zira praja Farishad, Karimnagar District, Rep. by its chie:f Eixecr'rtive officer 5. One CC to SRI CH GANESH Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to 7. Two CCs tc' GF FOR SERVICES ll 'High Court for the State of Telangana' Saifabad, H Yderirtlad '

8. Two CCs to AC;P FOR SERVICES I 'High Court for the State o1' Telangana' t To, F F E, Bi r I

9. Two CD CoPies ly- DD BS I E HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 I i ,/ /..:, c it c t) 2:l tiiY 2ffi 1:l -./- 11' ./ ORDER WP.No.3949 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS EN \ .--\-r i)/\'- \ ?-c- \