Dr.Balla lndira Devi v. 1. The State of Telangana

...RESPONDENTS Petition under. Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more partiqularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the indecision of the Respondent Department in not taking any steps to count the temporary service rendered on contract basis by the petitioner from the year 09.01 2002 to 2604'2006 in the Respondent Departmenttosanctionregularpension,gratuityandotherretirementbenefitsas per revised pension rules of 1980, on retiring from service on 30 04 2018 due to indecision of respondent Department from 16 long years as highly illegal' unjust' unfair, totally arbitrary and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the past service rondered by the petitioner on contract basls from the year 09.01 .2002 to 26.04 11006 in the respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qu,rlifying service to sanction pension. gratuity and other retirement benefits 1c lhe petitioner as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rules 1980, with arreirTs along with interest from the date of retirem€)nt of petitioner w.e.f., 30.04 2018 r:n attaining age of superanntetion with all consequential monetary benefits t))' awarding exorbitant costs against res6rorrdents for their indecision for '1 3 long years in forcing the petitioners tc, approach this Hon'ble Court for justice to apply the judgments rendered in the similarly situated cases in W.P.No 1173'5 ol 201 9, dt.06 02.2023 and the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devarakonda Srilakshmi \/s Government of A.P., (2010 2ALD 165) u nder Article 141 of our Constitution in the present case treating the petilioner as similar to lhem not as dissimilar as per the principal laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.6260-6261 c'f 2021 , d| 26.10.2021, (2021 (6)4LD 2t5(SC) lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondettt herein to make eligible the petitioner f,cr sanction of regular pension. gratuity and other retirement benefits as per re.rvised pension Rules 't 980 by c,:unt ng the past service rendered by the petitioner on tomporary basis under contract service in the respondent department as Me<jical Officer for computation of qual fying service, as per the Judgment render-.d in similarly situated case in ty'y'.P.No 11735 of 2019, d1.06.02.2023. Counsel for the l)etitioner: SRI Ch.GANESH Counsel for the llespondents: AGP FOR SERVICES-II The Court made the l'ollowing: ORDER , a t q i t HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION N0.6958 0F 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-If appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The Det t o n er al)Droached this Court seekino the praver as under: "....to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the indecision of the Respondent Department in not taking any steps to count the temporary service rendered on contract basis by the petitioner from the year 09.01.2002 to 26.04.2006 in the Respondent Department to sanction regular pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980, on retiring from service on 30.04.2018 due to indecision of respondent Department from 16 long years as highly illegal, unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the past service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis from the year 09.01.2002 to 26.04.2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qualifying service to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner I ' ,"., \\,.p.lrlo.o958 2023 as p()r tl- e Revised Pension Scheme Rules; 1980, with arrears along with interest from the date c'f retirernent of pt:titioner w.e.f.,30'04.2018 on attaining agle of supe-annuration with all consequentia mon":tary benefits by awarding exorbitant costs against respondents for their indecision for 16 long years in forcirtg t1e petitioners to approach this Hon'ble (:lourt for justi(:e to apply the judgments rendered in the similarly situated cases in W.P.No'117:t5 of 'l 019' dt.06.02 ',1023 and the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devarakonda Srilal'lshmi Vs Government of A.P., (2010 2ALD 165) under A'rticle 141 of the Constitution in the present case treating the petitioner as similar to them not as diss milar as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme CoL'rt in C.A,No.€,2-60-6251 of 202r, dt.26'tO'2O2tI, (2021 (6) ALD 285 (SC) and Pass..."

3.7 he case of v r e the Detitaoner rn brief as per the itio r-ln itio r rn s f the se writ u nder: The p:titioner approached this Court ilggrievcrd by the inaction ()f tfre respondents to count the past service rendered by the pt:titic,ner on contract basis from the ye:ar 09) 01'2002 to 26.04.2006 in the respondent Department to reckon [he period for computation of qualifying service to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petit orler as per l w.P.No.6es8 2sili the Revised pension Scheme Rules 1980, with arrears along with interest from the date of retirement of petitioner w,e.f., 30.04.2018 on attaining age of superannuation with all consequential monetary benefits by awqr:ding exorbitant costs against respondents for their indecision for 16 long years in forcing the petitioners to approach this Hon,ble Court for justice to apply the judgments rendered in the simirarry situated cases in W.P.No.11735 of 2019, dt.O6.0Z.2OZ3 and the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devarakonda Srilakshmi Vs Government of A.p., (2010 2ALD 165) . under Article 141 of the Constitution in the present case treating the petitioner as similar to them not as dissimilar as per the principle laid by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.6260_ 6251 of 2021, dt.26.tO.2O2t, (202t (6) ALD 285 (SC).

4. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarery covered by the order of this court dated 24.LL.2022 passed in W.p. No.7343 of 2Ot9 and therefore the petitioner herein are entifled for the same relief as extended to the petitioners in W.p. No.7343 of 2O19.

5. The learnedA ssrs nt overn ment Plea er, a th re n n d n e -l n ma e a pDea rln o be a t f h h r .-\r- --'1 SN,J W.l'.1ro.5958-2021 e r ed couns

6. Th a t rtion of h o W.P. No. 7 20 L9, dat d 24.L 1 2022- in p,art ra Nos.5 to 8& 10to L4 are extracted her eu nder. 334 DA order of thi Court tn r "*r'i't' ui= u',ri, i",,f il - :-,-i{iti-""',tlltl'*ll oo?.'.t"1fl d,ear. wrth the lifiJ:lt ;:"1:'f'#"i""rntb t t"rnporary. employ€e for the oualifving service "t oriroose of payment or"p*tiot neid ttrat th€ qualifying serrvice of a Governm"nlJ"r"unt shall comnlence from ftre dste he takes.nu*" Jr"tn" port to whict he is first a rpointed with sunsta='itiiety or. ln an ofticiating or te m Prl ra rY ca PacitY ' t 6. Subject to the exceptions contained -l-'t'u""t ' and b) of Rule r: o'"Jl-J Rules a t€:mporar'y' employee shall rurther satisfy tne ci"iifi""t stipuiat':d under Rule I4 of the Rules for t"'"iitl his te.nporary service for -n'i"t'fj of the Andhra oensronary beneiits' i'rad:sh Revised p"n'io"n'""n'i"t' 1980 dears with the ouallfying service o'-']" tutipoiary emplol'ee for the llurpose of payment or plniion'*nich reads as; under: '13. c"m^"f'"+f?l;?li;! :' g' : : :,1:;::,' {3Xi3' i ! Z ;;,i','"o i i "'n.' " r r (' rt t ! e d a rc h e takels charge or tnt pi'li io";';i'; he is fits-t appointed either substantively oi- ii- u' officiating c)r temporary and -14 r caPlcitY: Provided that - (a) in the case of a Governmen' t?'-Y''-1t^''n a Class rv ,"rVi'r""or'post *no nJii ti"' or 't susP'e"tnded lien on a oermanent persionabte iili iii"' t.o the-:!::^!ovember' 7960, service rendered Ltiii" uttui''ng the age of sixteen ii;ii'r;;*';;ai not count ror anv purpose; ttnd 5 SN,J W.P.No.6958 2023 (b) in the case of a Government servant nocovered by clause (a), service rendgred turor. "iuiiiig the age of eighteen (18) years shall not co,untt, compensation g ratu ity. ''except

74. Co di n u c o c a es.' f a Government servant shail not quatify pay unless his regulated by the under conditions determined by tne (1) The service o duties are and Government, or Government. (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression service means service under the Goveri'ment and paid by the Government from the Consotidatea ruii ir tn" Stut" but does not include service in a nin_pensionabte establishment unless such service is treated is qualifying service by the Government.,, 7. The Di vtsl n Benchvi eitso rder da ed .2 6i w. of o1 v e c un n .N 82 h f en on s R Pe a P d o d R u u e n c s r s 1 I 1 7, th Tri un lh dr erv e f rt e e d

8. Under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 2O.O6.2017 passea in-W.p.fV" .L77OO ol 2016 one Sri p. Dasharadham, approached the High Court l*.tlg retief as prayed for in itre p."r.rt Writ petition and the same was implemented 'by the respondents !!e19in vide Lt.No.6o47 /CRp&RE/c_r- jzote, dated 1O.1O.2O18 and also communicated tne same to the petitioner thereunder vide tetter nc.no,aiOT+ L7O/2OiSl dated O8.1O.2018.

10. fn W.p.No.1425 of 2c:lg, under similar circumstances, the Division Bench of tn. High Court considered the issue where the past services of the applicant prior to their regularizatiln .rn O. taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. The Division Bench in its judgment dated 1S.1d.2O19 referring to the j-ud_gments of the Apex Court reported in (2OO1) 10 SCC 473 State of Tamil V. T.N. i.egistration Department -Y $ I 6 SN.J \\'P No.6958_202i Ministerial Service Association at paras 9, 1O and 11 held hereunder: "9. Similar view was taken by et Divisictn Bench of tne high Court of ludicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra pradesh in State of Andhra pradesh V. M. Raja Rao and also l.ho Karnataka High Court in B.H. Karnataka pctwer Transmission Corpctration Limited. \-'r\' ! - l) f e

11. It is also to be noted here that the orders ptrss€d by the Tribunat in O.A.No.6524 of 2014, and batch detted 14.17.2074 were not chaltenged and they have beconre final. Therefore, once the oiders of. ttte Tribunal are not challenged and have become final, there is no other option for the authorities except to intplement the same. " --__ 1r.. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in !2o?o). 1 SCC (L&S) in prem Singh-r 1trt. of Uttar Pradesh and others, at para 36 held is under: '36. There are some of the emptoyees wh,:.t have not been regularized in spite of having ren'clered the services for 3(t-40 or more years whereas they h,ave been superannuated. As they have worked in the nrork_charged establi:;hment, not against any particutar pro-iect, t'tteir services ought to have been regularized iinder the Goverr,ment instructions and even is pe, the cr,ecision of thi:; Cc,urt in State of Karnataka versus umad,::vi (3) 1 1 . This Court in the said decision has laid tlown th,at in case services have been rendered for more, than ten years without the cover of the Court,s order, as one_time measure, the services be regularized of such ernployees. In the facts of the case, emptoyees t(ho have worked for ten years or more should he,ve been regular,,zed. It would not be proper to regutate them for consideration of regularization as oth1rs ha,ve been reg'Llanzed, we direct that their services be tre,tted as a regular one. However, it is made ctear thit they shatt not be entiiled to claiming any dues of aiffe)ence in wages had they been contjnued in serviie before "regularl,,r -those -7/ 7 SN,J W.P.No.6958 2023 attaining the age of superannuation. Thev shailbe reti. d from t e reoular establish ment and the services rendered bv the riqht from the dav thev entered the work-charoed establishment s all be counted as oual. no service for DurD se of pension." en t , I (

12. The iudoment dated 23 .O8.2017 in Civil DDeals No.1O 06 of 2O1 7 with numbers 1O8O5 of 20 L7 and 10807 of 2O1 7reDorted tn 2 o 19) 10 scc 542. in Habib Khan vState of Utta rakh a nd at oa ras 6 and 7 it is observed as u nder: "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.L7(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 pension. The pari materia 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 hold that the appellants are entitled to reckon the period of work-charged service for purposes of computation of "qualitying service for gran!-_qf pension We order -> 8 accordilgly, allow these appeals and impugned orders passed by the High Cou rl." SN,J W.P.Nc,.69-ttl 2023 set a side the U e De bservlno s follows: Petition (C) No.g of 2018 fil ed 13. The ore theA x Cou rtA o rieved bv the o rders I No. 108O6 dat€d- 23 .08.20 L7 oassed in Civil A pea d was k of 2O1 m dis mrs en bv the 16.01. 20 18a ndas imilar view was tak ou rt in the iudq ent dated 1 8.O1.2 o22 ln the A! StalEe-of Guiara and thers v Tals bhai Dh aniibhai Pat "It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and therreaf'ter now to contend that as the services rendered by ther respondent are ad-hoc, he is; not entitled to perisiorl/pensionary benefit. The State c'lnnot be permitl:ed to take the benefit of its own wron(l' To take thr: Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to corrtend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for ;tension is noihinll but unreasonable. As a welfare' State, the State as suclt ought not to have taken such a stand In the present case, the High Court has not rlommitted any error in directing the State to pay pensions'.y $enefits to the ,'espondent who has retired aft€)r rend€rring more than 30 years service. H€ nce, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed Paras 15, 17 and 18 which reads as under: "' Ina 1 Jha rkhand fth A ex versus ,. m urt i f -l iten ra Ku ar n -A of the Co stitutio nofln dia. Par ao ra ph 16 and 1 7ot the reDo rt stat as under: 1€,. The fact remains that there is an inrprimature to the le1;al principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in "property". "Article 3Ct0-A of the Constitution of India reads as under: ,1, 9 w.p.No.6es8 zsli "300-A. Persons not to be deprlved 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 300-4 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-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."

7. Takino into onsideration: (a) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for appearing on behalf of the respondents, (b) The contents of the judgment dated 24.1L.2O22 passed an W.P.No.7343 of 2O19. (c) Rules 13 and 14 ol the Andhra Pradesh Revised 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 { ..1 t0 SN.J \\/.P.Nc,.6958 2023 which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity and the fact as borne on record that temporary service shal! be counted as qualifyang 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) Ther order of this Court, dated 24.11.2O22 passed in W.P. No. 7343 of 2019. ai) (2oo1) 10 scc 473 iii)((2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) iv) (2019) 1o sCC s42 v) 2013 (12) SCC 210 vi) The judgment of the Division Bench Pr;adesh High Court, dated 17.O3.2O16 W.P.No.82O1 of 2O15. vii) The judgment of the Division Bench Pr;adesh High Court, dated 15.1O.2019, W,P.No.1425 of 2O19. of Andhra passed in of Andhra passed in The Writ Petition is allowed and the Respon(lents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner to process the pension proposals of the petitioner for issuance of the pension payment order 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 along with interest from the date of I SN,J W.P.No.6958-2023 retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.04.201g on attaining the age of superannuation, within a period of three (O3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance to laui, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court and Others Courts in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders. However, there shall be no order as to cost, Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY'/ SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI DEP UTYREGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, I Principal Secretary' Health' Medical and Family Welfare Department' Government ofTetangana' Secretariat' The State of Telangana' Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner' Department of Ayush' Government of Telangana' Sth 3. Secretary, Finance and Planning Department' Telangana Secretariat' The Floor TSGL'I Building' Tilak Road' Abids' Hyderabad' State of Telangana' HYderabad'

4. one CC to SRI Ch'GANESH Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II' High Court for the State of Telangana' Two CD CoPies t+- t) BGS BS t i ! l lrI I , I t. i i i t HIGH COURT DATED: 30t0412025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.6958 of 2023 41 -, a(' e I- .;I r ... r-) 4rl t. t. iI I 206 ):.. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS F \"f Y(-