High Court · 2026

4.Srilyl !g-ddy,.S{o. A,Gopat Reddy, AEE (R&B) Zot e-yt, aged 49 years, O/o. ENC Office, (R&B), Hyderabad, R/o MIGH 241 , Ei; talinagdr, Kukaipaily. Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ( rcumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High Cor r may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated. 14.05.20'l 4 in OA.No. 3265t. 014. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.SATYANARAYANA MUR-- ly, REp. FOR SRI RAMALINGESWARA RAO IOCHARLA KOTA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION lTrI No.2l71 OF 2OL7 Dated Sth December 2025 Between: A. Srinivas Reddy AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary, TR&B Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-22 & (3) others ORDER: Petitioner Respondents The present writ petition is frled seeking the following relief: "... to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in passing the rejection orders vide memo. No. 15065/Ser.lll(21112014, dated: 24.LO.2OL4, for accepting the voluntar5z retirement of the applicalt w.e.f. 31-1-2013 and without counting the EOL period (4 years 6 months) in to the applicant's totai service, as illegal, arbitrary, discrirninatory and in violation of specihc guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.214, Finance and Planning (PWFR.[) Depa_rtmenr, dated: 3- 9-1996, and set aside the sarne, consequently direct the respondent to consider arrd accept the contribution arrd payments of leave salary by allowing the applicant's voluntary retirement ...." 2) Heard Sri R. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel, representing Sri Ramalingeshwar Rao Kocharla Kota, learned t 2 PK. J $t (Trl 2171-20 t7 -lI counsel for the Petitroner' and learned Governmenl Pleader for Services-l appearing for respondents' 3) Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that re petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Executive Enginee r in the ofhce of Superintending Engineer [R&B)' Balkampet' Hydelr bad' on 31- O1-1990 and subsequently worked in the offrce of resl ondent No 2 and completed 23 1'ears of service as on 31'O1'2011) in the same cadre. While the petitioner was working as Assislz nt Executive Engineer (R&B) Special Grade of Zone-VI' in the offict of Engineer- in-Chief (R&B) Hyderabad' respondent No'1 Ils accorded permission to the petitioner to secure and take u1 employment abroad, subject to fulhlling the conditions tipulated in G.O.Ms.No'214, Finance and Planning (FW'FR I) Department' dated: 3-9-1996 , vide his G.O'Rt'No'406' TR&B (S It ) Department' Thereafter, respondent No i has issued dated: 24-5-2000 tial orders in Proceedings No'9365/Ser'\ (3)/99' dated: the aPP1icant consequen 15-6-2000 and granted Extra-Ordinary Leave tr' pay arrd allowances for a total period of I without months starting from 17-6-2000 FN to counsel further submits that the petitioner secur :d emPloYment 16-5-200: AN Learned years and 11 3 PK, J Wp lTrl 217 r-2or7 abroad and reported back to duty even before completion of leave period vide reposting orders dated 18.lO.2OO2 issued by respondent No.2. Accordingly, the petitioner has joined at R&B Section, Bibingar, in the existing vacancy. The petitioner has availed the leave only for 2 years ar-d 4 months out of the sanctioned leave of 4 years and 1 1 months.

3. 1) Learned counsel further submit that based on the representations of the petitioner, again respondent No.2 has sanctioned Extra-Ordinary leave for a further period of two years 6 months and 29 days to the petitioner w.e.f.03- 1O-2008 FN to O2- 05-2011 AN vide proceedings No.26086/Services V(1)/2008, dated 11 09-2008. Even before completion of said sanctioned period, the petitioner has joined the duty vide Posting Orders dated

03.l2.2OIO in PPP Ceil Olo the.Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Hyderabad, in the existing vacancy. Thereafter, on 01.11.20i1 petitioner submitted leave letter to respondent No.2 for sanction of Earned Leave from 03-0 1-20 1 I to O2-O4-20 1 1 and EL was also granted and the leave was extended upto O1-07-2011 at the request of the petitioner vide representation dated 31.03.2011 Finally, the petitioner made alother representation to the !r- 4 PK, J wp lTt)_2171_2Ot7 petitioner on 22.06.2013 to respondent No.2 req; :sting to extend the leave frorn O2.O7.20 11 to 30.01.2013 dulv intimating his pending request for VRS made in his reprr:, entation dated Ol.ll.2Ol2 and also requested to make necessary alary payments at the earliest. However, respondent No.2 hzr issued Memo No.15065/Ser.V(Il/20Il-1, dated O8-Ot-2OI4. rejecting the request of the petitioner for Voluntary Retirement .'r e.f. 3 1.O I .20 l3 on the ground that the petitioner is not havir g 20 years of qualifying service for Voluntary Retirement, as reqrr red under Rule 43 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (in short I evised pension Rules J .

3.2) Learned counsel further submits that in pu -suance to the interim order dated 14.05.2014 passed by the r\ rdhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal granting interim sus[,( nsion of the rejection order dated O8.O1.2O14 and directing resp rndent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the representations cl the pelitioner dated 05.03.2014 and 27.O4.2O14, the present rr Lpugned order dated 24.IO.2014 has been passed by respondent Jrl r.2 once again rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground thrr the petitioner 5 PK, J wp lTr)_2t71 20 t7 has not put in 20 years of exclusive service as required under Rule 43 of the Revised Pension Rules

3.3) Learned counsei for the petitioner contends that in similar circumstances, respondent No.2 has considered the Extra Ordinary Leave period of one K.Phalindra, AEE (R&B), and allowed him to retire voluntarily on 30 .06.2OOT by accepting the pension contribution paid by him and also sanctioned his retirement pension, however, the said beneht is not extended to the petitioner herein even though the petitioner is having suffrcient requisite qualifying service and also willingness to pay the pension contribution towards his retirement pension. Learned counsel further submits that as per para S (2) of G.O.Ms.No.214, dated

03.09. 1996, the period of absence during employment abroad shall be treated as extraordinary leave without allowances, but such absence will not be construed as a break in service. The said period shall not be counted for service benefrts such as increment, pay, leave, etc., but, if contribution towards pension is paid by foreign employer or employee, such periods will count for pension.

3.4) Learned counsel further submits that the total period of extraordinar5r leave sanctioned to petitioner without pay and 6 PK, J - wp (Trl 2t7 ) -2017 allowances is 4 years 11 months, out of which, 1 te petitioner has availed 4 years 6 months period in differenr spells. As per G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996 and c.O.l/ s.No.756, dated 07 .O8.2OO2, the benefrt of availment of EOL ; rall be given to Government employees at a single stretch or in d 1-erent spells, but for a period not exceeding Iive years in all during t re entire service. Therefore, including the EOL period availed t,. the petitioner, under valid sanction orders, he is entitled for Voht rtar)' Retirement with effect from 31.01.2013 AN and also en: rled to get his retirement pension. Therefore, the action of re:; rondent No.2 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is i l:ga1, arbitrary, discriminatory and therefore the impugned order i liable to be set aside. 4l Per contra, learned Government Pleader ap:earing for the respondents submits that as per the Service Rules r f the petitioner, he has completed only 18 years of service excltrcl rg employment abroad leave i.e. 5 years of Extraordinary Leave. 'f rerefore, as per Rule 43 (i) of Revised Pension Rules, Extraordinar . Leave availed other than Study Leave will not qualify for coun- rg 20 years of qualifying service, which is a pre-condition for voluntar5z 7 PK, J wp l'tr) 2171 2Ol7 retirement. Further, as per the letter dated 08.01.2014 addressed by the Government, as per proviso (3) under Rule 43 of Revised Pension Rules, extraordinary leave availed on any ground other than for prosecuting higher studies within the State/outside the State/Country without receiving arry payment except stipends during the period of such leave from any source, but including medical certihcate shall not be reckoned as qualifying servlce. Therefore, the permission to retire from service to the petitioner voluntarily has been rejected in terms of Rule 43 r/w.Rule 21 of Revised Pension Rules vide Memo dated 08.01.2014. Learned Government Pleader further contends that sub-clause (2) of para 5 of G.O.Ms.No.2l4, dated 03.09.1996, is applicable only in case of superannuation retirements whereas Voluntary retirements are governed by Rule 43 r lw.2l of Revised Pension Rules, which mandates 20 years of qualifying service exclusively i.e. without extraordinary leave, etc. for opting VRS by an employee. Therefore, the respondents are justified in passing the impugned rejection orders as the petitioner has not put in 20 years of exclusive service as required under Rule 43 of Revised Pension Rules and thus the learned Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8 PK, J wp lTr) 217 I _2O 17 5) This Court has taken note of the subnL ssions made by respective parties and perused the material on rer: ,rd 6) Here, it is relevart to state that the facts ar,: not in dispute in the present case. 7) The main contention of the petitioner s that as per G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996, more specili :ally para 5 (2) thereof, the extraordinary leave without a-llowalce cal be counted for pension. The said provision reads as under: "The period of absence during employment i treated as extraordinary leave without allowarces I of absence will not be construed as a break in ser. be counted for service benefits such as incremenr , However, if contribution towards pension is paicl employer or employee, such periods will count lor : broad will be ut such period ice. It will not pay, leave etc. by the foreign 'nsion.' 8) From the above, it is clear that the abst nce during the employment abroad will be treated as extraordin a 1r leave without allowances artd such period of absence will not hr construed as a break in service, however, the said period will n<r be counted for service benefrts such as increment, pay , lee i contribution towards pension is paid by the for,: e, etc. and if gn employer or employee, such period will count for pension. 9 PK, J Wp ('trl 2171 2Ol7 9) During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed the readiness of the petitioner to pay contribution towards pension. 10) Further, according to the respondents, para 5 (21 of G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996, is applicable only in case of retirement on superannuation but not voluntarily. But, this Court is not in agreement with the said contention since there is no such averment/expression in G.O.Ms.No .214, dated 03.09.1996, to that effect that the sarne is applicable oniy to retirements on superannuation. Therefore, it has to be construed that it applies to both the categories of retirements. 11) Further, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondents have considered the case of one phalindra and allowed to retire him on 03.06.20 17 by accepting the pension contributions paid by him and sanctioned retirement pension to the said individual vide AG Letter dated lO.l2.2OOg- But, the counter is silent in this regard. Therefore, on the ground of discrimination a-lso the impugned rejection orders dated i O8.O1.2014 arrd 24.to.2o14 are liable to be set aside. ,,,1 l0 PK, J wp (Trl- 2I7l 2Ol7 \: -' -j - 12) For the aforesaid reasons and having regal ( to the fact that the petitioner is willing to pay contributions tor'vilds pension, this Court is of the view that as per claLrse 5 (2) c I G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996, the rejection orders dated t )8.O1.2O14 and

24.10.2014 are liable to be set aside 13) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowerl the impugned rejection orders dated O8.O1.2O14 and 24.LO.2,3 14 are set aside and the respondents are directed to consider and accept the pension contribution payments as per para 5 (2) o G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996 and allow the petitioner to retLr e voluntarily, as was done in case of one K.Phanindra. The said :xercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the c r te of receipt of a copy of this order Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in his u,rit petition sha1l stand closed. No costs. NOTE:- That in the order dt. 05.12.2025 1ffi-1rn1.ruo.2171 ol 2017 has multiple erro-rs and same aie corrected as per the orders of the Hon Court dt. 20.01.2026 in l.A.No.1 of 2026. This amended order shall substitute the ea order which has already been dispatched 15.12.2025. //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Principal Secretary, TR&B Department, Telangana-22. SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSi STANT REGISTRAR 'bte rlie r SD/- C. DEEPIKA S STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER tariir. Hyderabad, State of

2. The Engineer-in-Chief (Admn.) (R&B) Department, Erramunzil, State of Telangana, Hyderabad-482

3. 9_te CC to SRI RAIMALTNGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA, Advocate loPUCl

4. Two ccs to GP FoR SERVTCES-|, High court for the state of relangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies BSR GJP HIGH COURT DATED: 0511212025 2010112026 ,\/ AMENDED ORDER WP(TR).No.2171 of 2017 0g rtt 8& :7 7. ): r' -l- i_> I L-- t ). \ \. ( ALLOWTNG THE WRIT PETITTON (TR), WITHOUT COSTS t 1