Tummanapally Laxminarayana v. The State of Telangana

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Circular Memo No. 897/Accts/D1/20 14-15, dt. 19-12- 2018, issued by respondent society to make eligible these petitioners for regular pension as per Revised Pension Rules 1980 by counting their past service rendered on temporary basis in the respondent society, pending further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. GANESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI S. BHOOPAL REDDY, S.C. FOR TS TWREIS counsel for the Respondent No.3: AGP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER - HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.6975 OF 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

2. The Detitioner aDD f oache d the Court seekinq Draver as under: "...to issue a wit order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the indecision of the respondent society in not taking any steps to count the temporary service rendered on contract basis by the petitioner from the year 1999 to 2009 in respondent society schools to sanction regular pension. gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980, on retiring from service on 31.05.2014 due to indecision of respondent society trom 1B long years as highly illegal. unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the past service of the petitioner rendered on temporary basis on contract basis from the year 1999 to 2009 in the respondent society to implement regular pension as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rules 1980 to allow the petitioner to get benefits of regular pension, 2 - *P 6er5:ilii gratuity and other retirement benefits w.e.f. 23.12.1999 to 31.05.2014 on attaining age of superannuation with all consequential monetary benefits by awarding exorbitant costs against respondents for their indecision for 18 long years in forcing the petitioners to approach this Hon'ble Court for justice and pass such order or orders as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

3. The case of the petitioner in brieF is that petitioner was appointed as Contract Residential Teacher on 23.12.1999 and subsequentlv got regularized vide Proceedings, dated

23.06.2009. Later on, the petitioner had retired from service on

31.05.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is specific case of the petitioner that the Respondent Society is not taking any steps to count the temporary service rendered on contract basis by the petitioner from the year

23.12.1999 to 23.06.2009 in the Respondent Society for the purpose of sanctioning regular pension gratuity and other retirement benefits, as per revised pension rules of 1980, on petitioner's retirement from service in the month of May, 2Ol4 in spite of petitioner's repeated requests for the same. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by fillng the present Writ petition. , : i I I -a/ -) SN, J wP 6975 2021

4. It is represented by 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 2OL9 and hence, the present writ petition could be allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated

24.L1.2022 passed in W.P.No.7343 of 2019. PERUSED THE RECORD.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 20.06.2017 passed by a division bench of this Court in W.P.No.177OO of 2O16 the same was implemented by the concerned respondents vide Lr.No.6O47lCRP&RE/C-2/2OL8, dated 1O.1O.2018 and also communicated the same to Sri P.Dasharadham who was,the applicant in O.A.No.5624 of 2015 vide letter Rc.No.B1Ol4L7O/2OL5' dated

08.10.2018. (rb E I SN. J wP 6975 2021 The relevant Dortion of Division Bench order of this Court dated 2O.O6.2O17 in W.P.No.177OO of 2016, is extracted hereunder: "Coming to the case of the 1st respondent herein, he filed O.A.No.5624 of 2015 stating that the respondents therein have not counted his past service as Full Time Contingent sweeper as per Government instructions issued in G.O.Ms. No.156, dated 29.04.1983. In the counter affidavit filed by him before this Court, he specifically stated that he was initially appointed as sweeper on 30.04.1982 in the Zillah Praja Parishad Secondary School for Girls, Narsampet, Warangal District. Accordingly, his services were regularized in the Last Grade post of Office Subordinate vide proceedings No.B10/2906/2007-28 dated 12.09.2013 of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. When similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in O.A. No.4409 of 2006, the same was allowed by the Tribunal vlde its order dated 18.12.2009. Subsequently, holding that the facts and circumstances of the case in O.A. No.4409 of 2006 are similar to the case in O.A.No.5624 of 2015, the learned Tribunal allowed the O.A. No.5624 of 2015 holding that the matter is squarely covered to the facts in O.A. No.4409 of2006, the 1st respon dent-a pplica nt is entitled for the relief, In view of above, the 1st respon dent-applica nt 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 1st respondent-applicant was put to irreparable loss. As per G.O.Ms. No.156, dated.. 29.04.1983, previous parr time --- I ! I l SN. J wP 697 5 2023 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 case of 1st 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. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. "

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I apDearinq on behalf of the resDondents does not disDute the said submissions made bv the learned counsel appearinq on behalf of the petitioner. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

7. Subiect to the exceptions contained in elauseS (al a fb) of Rule 13 of the Rules a temporarv emplovee shall further satisfy the conditions stioulated under Rule 14 of the Rules for countinq his temporarv service for pensionarv benefits. Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules. 1980 deals with the r l) SN, J \['P 6975 202]] se rvlce of a temporarv emolovee for the o ua I ifvi n o purDose of piryment of pension which reads as under:- "1.3. Commencement lrf qualifyinq service: Subiect to the orovisions of the rules, oualifvino service of a Governntent servant shall commence from the date he her substantivel or in an officiatin or tem ra he is e caDacitv: 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 pensionable post prior to the 17h November, 1960, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen (16) years shall not count for any purpose; and (b) in the case of a Government servant not covered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen (18) years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity.

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

8. In a iudoment of the Aoex Court in State of Jharkhand and others versus Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported an 2013 (12) SCC 210, dated 14.08.2013 it was held that oension and qratuitv are not bountv, but propertv within the meananq of Article 3OO-A of the 7 SN- J wP..697i 2021 Constitution of India. Paraoraohs 16 and 17 of the reoort states as underl

16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in "property". Article 300-A 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 ansrver 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 umbraqe of administrative instruction ca n not 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 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. 9 The iudoment of the ADex Court dated 23.O8.2O17 in Civil Aooeals No.1O8O6 of 2 O17 with numbers 1O8O5 of 2017 and 108O7 of 2O17 reoorted in (2019) 1O SCC 542. -J ! l I I 3 - SN, J wP 6975 2023 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 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 ol 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 whv the Deriod of service rendered on work-charoed basis bv the aopellants should not be counted for purposes of comoutation of "oualifvino service" for orant of oension. 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 apDellants are entitled to reckon the period of work-charqed service for ourDoses of comoutation of "qualifyinq service for orant of pension. We order accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court." -- () SN, J wP 6975 2021 1O. The Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2O18 filed before the Apex Court Aggrieved by the orders dated 23.08.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1O8O6 of 2OL7 in Habib Khan v State of Uttarakhand was dismissed by the Apex Court vide orders dated 16.O1.2018

11. In W.P.No.1425 of 2O19, under similar circumstances, the Division Bench of the Hiqh Court considered the issue whether the past services of the aoolicant orior to their reqularization can be taken into consideration for the Durpose of Dension. The Division Bench in its iudqment dated 15.10.2O19 referrinq to the iudqments of the Aoex Court reoorted in (2OO1) 1O SCC 473 State of Tamil V. T.N. Reqistration Department Ministerial Service Association at Daras 9, 1O and 11 held hereunder: "9. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the 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 the Karnataka High Court in B.H. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. 1O. In view of the iudqments of the Apex Court and other Hioh Courts referred to above, we are of the view that the past service of the applicant, who is the respondent herein, orior to his reqularization, has to be considered for the of pensionary benefits. 10 - SN, J wP 697i 2023

11. It is also to be noted here that the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6524 of 2014 and batch dated 14.17.2OI4 were not challenged and they have become final. Therefore, once the orders of the Tribunal are not challenged and have become final, there is no other option for the authorities except to implement the same. " L2. The Apex Court in the iudqment reoorted in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at oara 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructaons and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3) 11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the covei- of the Court's order, as one-time measure. the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts oF the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should 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. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reqular establishment and the services rendered bv them rioht m the dav thev entered the work-cha rqed establishment shall e counted as o ua I ifvi n o service for o uro ose of oension." - SN. J wP 6975 2021 13. A similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the iudoment dated 18.O2.2022 in Petition for Soecial Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1109/2022 in the State of Guiarat and others v Talsibhai Dhaniibhai Patel, observino as follows: r r n n nor^, tr) aar "It is unfort aun tet hat the State continued to take the serv ices of the res D o dent as an ad-hoc for 3O earq an dt h eaftc fe d fhat as the services rendered bv the esDondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to DC nsr o /oensionarv benefit. The State cannot be oermitte to take the benefit of its own wrono. To take the services continuouslv for 30 vears and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 vears continues service shall not be eliqible for Dension is nothinq but unreasonable, As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. 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 yea rs service. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed." t4. The Division Bench of erstwhile AP High Court vide its order dated 17.03.2O16 in W.P.No.82O1 of 2O16 very clearly held that the Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion 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. r t2 SN, J urP 697i 2023

15. In a similarly situated case filed by the teachers of Gurukulam this Court i.e., Hon'ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, in its final order dated

06.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.11735 of 2O19 at para 16 and L7 observed as under:- '...16, However, in view of the discussion on the first limb that the services of the petitioners have to be taken into account from the date of their initial appointments, it is needless to observe that the petitioners would obviously come under the provisions of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 but. they cannot be subjected to take shelter of the G.O.Ms.No.655 dated 22.09.2004 which was introduced for implementation of Contributory Pension Scheme for the employees recruit on or after 01.09.2004. Admittedly the petitioners are in service from 2002 onwards. The plea of the respondents is that the petitioners were regularized after 01.09.2004 is misconceived.

17. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the Circular Memo No.897lAccts/01/2014-15 dated 79.t2.20L8 of the respondent Society and the resoondents are herebv d irected to count the oa st service of the oetitioners rendered in the resoondent Soctetv on contract basis from the date of their res tve aoD ointments tQ_jr[plqment reoular pension as per the Revised - SN, J wP 6975 2023 Pensaon Rules, 1980 with all conseouential monetarv benefits. No order as to costs... "

16. This Court opines that the specific plea put-forth by the respondents that the petitioner is eligible only for counting petitioner's services from the date of his regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.O4.L994 is untenable in view of the law and the observations laid down by the Apex Court and other Courts in the various judgments(referred to and extracted above) and the petitioner therefore cannot be deprived of his constitutional right for consideration of petitioner's case by the respondents herein for counting the past service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis for the period from the year 23.12.1999 to 23.06.2OO9 in the respondent Society to reckon the said period for computation of qualifying service for sanction of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner as per law, except by authority of law since pension is not a bounty, but property within the meaning of Article 3OO-A of the Constitution of India, In view of the fact that similarly situated persons obtained the similar relief through orders rlE l.+ SN. J \\'P 697-i 2021 dated L7.O3.2OL6 passed in W.P.No.82O1 of 2OL6, 2O.O6.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.177OO of 2016, 15.10.2019 passed in W.P.No.1425 ot 2O19 and 06.O2.2O23 passed in W.P.No.11735 of 2O19 which had even been implemented tn respect of the said petitioners and the said fact had even been admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents herein, this Court opines that the petitioner herein cannot be discriminated, and the said action of the respondents in denvinq the said relief to the petitioner erroneously is in clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as observed by the Apex Court in its two iudqments qiven below. T ADex Court in its iudqment reoorted in 2021 A) (6) ALD 285 (SC) Modified Voluntarv Retirement Srh eme nf 200 ).\l Au^rn Iahi Mill Warkor< A<socr Vs National Textile Corporation Ltd and very clearly observed that the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is vested in favour of person, who claims equality and parity, and therefore, it is enforceable against state instrumentalities in exercise of 1 ZOZL (6) ALD 285 (SC) 4 power under Artacle 226 of the Constitution and further when equals are treated - 15 $,P 6e?5 :fjj unequally, there is violation of Article 14. The equality is a definite concept and those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to equal treatment. Paras 9(c) and 9(d) of the said judgment reads as under: "9(C)The submission on behalf of the respondents more particularly Iearned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the appellant Association - 318 ex-employees have no legal right and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no legal duty has no substance and cannot be accepted. Right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is vested right in favour of the person who claims equality and parity and the same is enforceable against State / State instrumentalities in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, We find no justification at all in treatino 318 ex-emolovees different frq nl those 134 ex-emplovees who were allotted 2OO Sq. Yards of olots free of cost. We find that as such the esuals are treated uneouallv and therefore, when the eouals are treated unequallv, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore the aoDellants were entitled to the relief souoht even in exercise of oowers under n 226 ol heC n In 9(D) The concept of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws emerges from the fundamental right expressed in Article 14 of the Constitution. Equality is a definite concept. The concept of equality has an inherent Iimitation arising from the very nature ofthe constitutional guarantee. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. Equality is amongst equals. Classification is therefore to be founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the groups and such differential attributes must bear in just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. l6 SN. J \\'t,69?5 20ll a IV ermit a valid cla be followed must necessarilv satisfv two tests, Firsth the distinquishinq rationale has to be baged on a iust obiective and secondlv, the choice of differentiatinq one u nma c I f Ir6aYl e n .rt h r rnr rqt har,,a a raa<ar ehn nexus to the obiects soustttlo be achreved. In the present case allotment of 200 Sq.Yards free of cost to 134 employees was to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure. As observed hereinabove those 318 ex-employees who are denieC the 5 benefit of allotment of 200 Sq.Yards ol' plots free of cost are similarly placed persons with that of 134 employees who are allotted 200 Sq.Yards plots free of cost. There is no rationale iustification in providinq differential treatment to one class of ex- emplovees similarly placed with another clag; qf ex: em plove es who are atlotted the plots." B) The Aoex Court in its ludqment in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Aravind Kumar Srivastava and Others, dated 17.10.2O14 in Civil Aooeal No.9849 of 2O14 observed as under: "( 1) Normal rqle is that when a rarticular set of emDlovees is qiven relief bv the Court, all other identicallv situated oersons need to be treated alike by extendinq that benefit-Npt dainq sa r Lauld amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This orinciole needs to be rvtce ma ffa rs more emnhaficallv asth fro m time to servtce Iurt sDrudence evolv s ul should be treated si rly. Ther n the norm al rule a- 1 t1 SN, J wP 697i 2023 would be that merelv because other similarlv situated ersons di not a roach th c ea rli r n h r to be treated d ifferentlv." L7. This Court opines that petitioner cannot be discriminated since it is not disputed even by the respondents herein that the same benefit had already been extended to the persons working in other Departments of State Government, similarly situated lake the petitioner, but however the same had been denied to the petitioner herein illegally after extracting services of the petitioner for more than 15 years.

18. Takino into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The iudqments of the Apex Court and other Courts( referred to and extracted above) and aqain enlisted below:- i) 2013 (12) SCC 21O, dated 14.08.2013 ii) (2019) 1O SCC s42 \; - l8 SN. J wP 6975 ?023 iii) The Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2O18, dated 16.01.2018 iv) W.P.No.1425 of 2OL9 v) (2o2o) l scc (L&s) vii) Judgment dated [A.O2.2O22 in SPL (C) No.LlO9/2O22 viii) Division Bench order in WP No.82O1 of 2O16 ix) W.P.No.1L735 ot 2Ol9 x) 2021 (6) ALD 285 xi) Civil Appeal No.9849 ot 201-4 d) Rule 13 and 14 of the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (referred to and extracted above) which clearly indicates that quatifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he or she takes charge of the post to wh ich he or she is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity, The M/rit Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner to count the temporary service rendered on contract basis by the petitioner for the period from 23.12.1999 to 23.06.2009 in the Respondent Society and to reckon the said period for computation of qualifying service for sanction of pension gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner as per Revised Pension Rules of 1980, in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of - ! 19 SN, J wP 6975 2021 natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner duly taking into consideration the relevant documents in support of petitioner's case and the observations in the various Judgments of the Apex,Court and other Courts (referred to and extracted above) and'pass appropriate orders, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD. lS[(/rlL DEPUTY REGIST|i/rR 6 SECTION OFFICER ,TRUE COPY// To .1 . The Principal Secretary, Tribal V/elfare Department, State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Secretary, Telangana State Tribal Welfare, Residential Educalional lnstitutions Society Gurukulam) DSS Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

3. The Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. One CC to SRI CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to SRI S. BHOOPAL REDDY, S.C. forTS TWREIS [OPUCI 7. Two CCs to GP for Finance & Planning, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies MP TKS ?nq I HIGH COURT DATED:23 1A612025 SIA 1v' o() 2 B JAt 2t6 * * ORDER WP.No.6975 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Pr'( t o1'rzt>{