1. l. Sumathi v. The State of Telangana

Petition u rder Articte 226 of \he constitution of lndra praying that in the circumstances state(l in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nirture of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not c;oltnting the past temporary servi:e rendered by the Petitioners in the contrngent / contract establishment frrrm tl'er date of their initial appointment in tl-e yea' 1')99 to 2009 for computation of qualitying service as per G.O.Ms.No"156, Financt: and Planning (FW PEN l) Decartrrent, dated 29-04 1983, for the purpose 'rf sanction of pension, Gratuity oth-'r retirement benefits on eve attaining age rlf r:;uperannuation of petrtioners bv applying principle laid by this Honble court tn the case of Devarakonda srt Lalcshmi Vs. Government of A.P. 2010 (2) ALU 165 by applying the principle lai,j by Apex Court in the case of Habib Khan V,:rses state of Uttarakhand ancl others in civil Appeal No.10806 of 2017 and batch dt. 23-08- 2017, (2019) 1O SCC 542), along with orders in Review Petition t'C) Ng 9 of 2018' dt. 16-01-2018, n (2019 1O SCC 545) followed by Division Bench of this Honble Court in W.P No 8201 of 2016, dt.17-03-2016, and in',fVP No'17700 of 2016, dt.2o-06-2017, as hirlhly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional for violation of arlicle 14,16,21,1]9 (d) 43and 300 A of our constitution and equity' and fair play and prays to direct the .espondents herein to count the pn:-absorption service of Petitioners herein rr-.ndered in respondent society on contrerct basis for the purpose of comprutat on of qualifying service for sanction of penrsio,t and Gratuity, other retrrement bent>fits by applying the principle laid by this Hontrle court in the similar case of coll€agues of petitoners in w.P. No. 11735/2019 dt 6-2-2023 herein under Article { 41 of our Constitution. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition urtder Section 151 CPC praying that in the :ircumstances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petition, the High Court mery rle pleased To direct the respondenls herein to consider the case of the Petitionrlr. to count the pre-absorption s,srvice rendered by the Petitioner in temporary capi,tcity from 1999 to 2009 for comlutalion of qualifying service to sanction pensic,n, Gratuity, other retirement bene'rts as per G.O.[Vls.No.156. Finance and Planning (FW.PEN 1) Department, datt:d 20-04- 1983 revised from time to time by applyinq the judgment rendered by this Horhle High Court in W.P.No.1173512019 dt 06-02-2023 in the 6 F l E t I T ; t l I r : similarly situated case of colleagues of petitioners forthwith by treating the petitioners as similar not dissimilar. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI. CH GANESH Counsel for the Respondent NO 1,2: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent NO 3 : GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER I f, r t. 1f I + 'li it, ,t r t t' ------.+' ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRTT PETITION No.9353 OF 2023 Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned coirnsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Governm,=nt Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the res pon dents.

2. The oetitioners aooroached this Court seekinq the prayer as uncler: ".. to issue an order or direr:tion Tnore particularlv one in the nature of Mandamus to rjer::lare the a:tion of the respondents in not count ng tfre past temprll-31-'7 service rendered by the Petiticrners in the contingent / contract establishment from the clat3 of, their initia appointment in the year 1999 to 2CrO!) for computat on of qualifying service as per G.O.Nls.Nr.156, Finance and Planning (FW.rEl!.1) Depar-tment, dated 29-04-1983, for the purpr:se of sanction of' pension, Gratuity other retirement b,3n(tfits on eve attaining age of superannuation of petit.io'1ers by applying principle laid by this Hon'ble Court in the case ,)f Devarakonda Sri. Lakshmi VS. Go!,ernmert of A.P. 2010 ('2) ALD 165 by applying the prinr:ipte tairj by Apex Cou 1, in the case of Habib Khan Ver:;es Statr: of Uttare khand and others in Civil Appeal No.10806 oF 2077 and batch dt. 23-08-2077, (2019) 10 SCC 5,,12), I 2 SN,J W.P.No.9353 2023 along with orders in Review petition (C) No. 9 of 2OIB, dt. 16-01-2018, in (2019 10 SCC 545) foflowed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.p. No. 8201 of 2076, dt.L7-03-2016, and in Wp No.17700 of 2016, dt.20-06-2017, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional for violation of articles t4,16,21,39 (d) 43& 300 A of the constitution and equity and fair play and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the pre-absorption service of petitioners herein rendered in respondent society on contract basis for the purpose oF computation of qualifying service for sanction of pension and Gratuity, other retirement benefits by applying the principle laid by this Hon'ble Court in the similar case of colleagues of petitioners in W.P. No. 1L735/2079 dt: 6-2-2023 herein under Article 141 of the Constitution and pass such order or orders in the interest of justice." 3 The case of the oetition in brief as t e h avermen ts made bv the Detitioners in the affidavit filed bv the oetitioners in suooort of the oresent writ etition ls as u nder: The petitioners approached this Court aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents to count the pre-absorption service of Petitioners herein rendered in respondent society on contract basis for the purpose of computation of qualifying service For sanction of pension and Gratuity, other retirement t J SN,J W.P \<:.9351 2023 by this Hon'blt,: Court in benefits ry applying the principle laid the similar case of colleagues of petitioners in W.P. No' 11735/2079 dt: 6-2-2023 herein under Article 141 of the Constitution

4. It rs rr:presented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the subject isstle in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated

24.11.2022 f)assed in W.P. No.7343 of 2Ol9 and therefore the petition'3rs herein are entitled for the same relief as extended to the petitioners in W.P. No.7343 of 2019.

5. The learned Assistant Government Ple de r. apDearln on beha lf of the resoondents does not dispute the said submission made bv t e learned counsel ann on behalf itioners Tl're relevant portion of the order of this Cou 6, W.P. No. 71343 of 2O19. dated 24.tL.2O22 in oarticular para No s 5to8&1Oto14are extracted hereu nde r. "5. L nder identical circumstances, the Divisior Bench of the High Court in W.P.No.8201 of 2016 rlated 1.2.03.2016 ref:rrirq to Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Re,/ised Pension Rules, 1980 which deal with the qualifying service of a temporary employ'eer for the purpos,s of payment of pension held that tl-e qualifying service of a Government Servant shall commr,lnce from 4 SN,J.\ W.P.No.9353 202i the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed with substantively or in 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 further satiify the conditions'stipulated under Rule 14 of the Rules for counting his temporary service for pensionary benefits. Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 deals with the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the purpose of payment of pension which reads as under: "13. Commen cement of oualifvino ervtce: Subject to the provisions of the rules, 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 ca pacity: 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 ly'h November, 7960, 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 nocovered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen (18) years shall itot count, except for co m pen sa tio n g ra tu ity.

74. Con ns subiect to which se ce aualifies: (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 Govern ment. (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression service means service under the Government and paid by the Government from the Consolidated Fund of the State but does not include service in a non-pensionable I ) SN.J W.P No.935i 2023 esr.iblishment unless such service is treated as qualifying ser /ice by the Government.,, 7. The Divi sron Bench vide its t7.o3.20 16iN W.P. No.82O he Tr un m r r 1of erv clea rlv held that c s f,or the u rDose of Densi on under Rules 3an d1 4 of the Andhr a Prad esh Revtsed Pens !on R les, 1980. lha fl h 2016 v t er da s

8. Under simitar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 2O.O6.2017 passed in W"p.No .l7],OO of 2O16 oner Sri p. Dasharadham, approached the High Court for.the relief as prayed for in ihe present Writ petition and the sarne was imptemented by the respondents therein vicle Lr.No.6O47 /CRp&REf C_2 /2OLB', dated 1O.1O.2O18 and also communicated the same to the petitionerr thereunder vide tetter Rc.No.B1O/4 i.7A/ ZOIS. dated 08.1O.2O18.

10. f n W.p.No.1425 of 2}1-g, under similar circumstances/ the Division Bench of tn" High Couit considere,d the issue where the past services of the applicant prior to their regutarization can be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. The Division Bench in its .iudgment dated 15.1d.2019 referring to the judgments ot the Apex Court reported in (2OO1) 1O SCC 473 Stat,e of Tamil V. T.N. iegistration Department Ministerial Service Association at p-aras 9,-lO and 11 held here u n der: "9. Similar view was taken by a Division Etench of the t-,tigh (:ourt of ludicature at Hyderabad for ttte .9tate otf Telangan t and the State of Andhra pradesh in ::;tate of Andh.a Fradesh V. M. Raja Rao and also the Karnataka High Court in B.H. Karnataka power Transmission Corporati)n Limited. f

11. .rt is also to be noted here that the orders passed by the Tribunat in O.A.No.6524 of 201q ttnc.r batch t{ 6\ SN,J' W.P.No.9353 2021 dated 14.11.2014 were not challenged and they have become final. Therefore, once the orders of the Tribunat are not challenged and have become final, there is no other option for the authorities except to imptement the same." 11. The Apex Court in the jridgment reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) in prem Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at para 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 particutar project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus lJmadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has taid down that 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 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 shalt not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. Th hall be en tled to receive the oehsio as if ev have retired from the reoular establishme nt and the entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as oualifvino service for DurDose of pension." db th m riah t from iha da n

12. The udoment dated 23.O8.2O17 in Civil Aooeals No.1O 8O6 of 2017 with n mbers 1O8O5 of O17 and 108o7 o12()17 reoorted in (2019) 10 SCC 542, in rakhand at Dara 6and7 Habib Khan v State of U it is observ ed 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 J 7 I () 7 w P I,Io,)353 tili Cour-t in Kesar Chand v. State ot Punjab. -rhe challenge by the rstat3 against the aforesaid decision cf the Fr.rll Bench of the PJnjab and Haryana High Court was negartived by this Court. The matter came up for consideratior before this CoLrrt, once again, in Punjab SEB versu:; Narata Singh. V/hile dealing with the said question this Court in Para 25 of the report held that the Full Bench decision of the [)unjab and Haryana High Court was perfectly justified in striking down Rule 3.t7(ii) of the punjab Civit Services Rulers resulting in obliteration of the distinction made in the s;aid R.ules between "temporary and officiating service,, and work-charged service on the said basis, this Court took the view that the period of work-,:harged service should lte reckoned for purposes of computirtion of "qualifying service" for grant ol pension 7. ,{s already observec, the provisions of Regulation 370 of lhe Civil Serv ces Regulations applicable to the Sr:ate oF Uttarakh,and are pari materia with the prr:visions of Rule 3.L7(.ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, discussed above. If that is so, we do not see as to why thr: ;:eriod of servi:e rr:ndered on work-charged basis bv the aprpellants shou d not be counted for purposes of computation of "qualifyirg service" for grant of pension. The pari materia provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the punjab Civil t:;ervices Rules; having been interpreted and understood in the abovrs manner by this Court in Narata Singh r,ve do not find ,rny 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 r:omputrrtion oF "qualifying service for grant of pens on rfle order accordingly, allow these appeals and set ,aside the impurSnecl orders passed by the High Court ,, b 'fhe Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2018 filed 13. befo re the Apex Court Aqori eved b the orders dated 23.08.2 O17 oas edinC ivil Aooea lNo. 10806 ol 2C)L7 in Habib Khan v state of Utta ra kha nd was EA x ourt v e 16.0L.2018 nd a sim ila r view was taken bv the Aoex Cou rt in the udqme t dated 18 .OL.2O22 tn the State of Guiarat and hers v Talsibhai Dhani ibhai Patel observtnq as fo llows: "It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services cf the respondent as an ad-hoc for 3Q ,7s;1r-5 a.6 t 8 SN, W.P.No.935l 2023 thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/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 employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing 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 years service. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed." Paras 15, 77 and 1B which reads as under:

14. In a iudqment of the ADex Court in State of Jharkhand and others versus Jitendra Kumar rlv stava and another re o 210 it was held that pension and oratuitv are not bountv, but propertv within the meanino of Article 3OO-A of the Constitution of India. Paraoraohs 16 and L7 of the report states as under: in2 12 1

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 300-4 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. ? I 7 9 -Ou.i. W.l,.No 9353 SN,J 2023 17. Ii hardly needs to .be emphasized that the executive instrL/ctions are not having ,tutrto.f -.f,,,rruat", unO, therefore, cannot be tern_ed1s ,,fu*;-*itnin ihe meaning rf the aforesaid Article 300_4. On f.f",u of such a ,rircLlar, which is not having force of L;, l;" appeilant (ranrot withhold even a part of pension or. 3r,iirity. n, *u noti(ed above, so far as stat story nrf ea ].,,,"aoncerned, thert: is no provision for withhoJdinS p"nrio.,l ,,r'gratuity in the rriven situation. Had there b""; ;;;;;.h provision in theso Rules, the position would have been diffr:rent.,, l' kinq i nto co siderati n: (a) The submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government pleader for Higher Education, n appearing Assista nt appearing on behalf of the respondents, (tr) l-he contents of the judgment dated 24.i-L.2O22 passed in W.p.No.7343 of 2O19. (c) Rutes Revisedl pensaon 13 and t4 of the Andhra pradesh Rules 198O which clearly indicate that gualifyi,ng service of a Government Servant shalt commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating (,r temporary capacity and the fact as borne on reco,rd that temporary service shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under Rules 13 and 1.4 of the Andhra pradesh Revased pension Rules

1980. I I l0 SN,J W.P.No.9353 2023 d) The observataons 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, -ciated 24.L1.2022 passed in W.P. No. 7343 of 2O19. ii) (2Oo1) 10 scc 473 iii)((2o2o) 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 17.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.82O1 of 2O16. vii) The judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated 15.10.2019r passed in W.P.No.1425 of 2O19. The Writ Petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioners to process the pension proposals of the petitioners 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 petitioners 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) and ] l1 V.r.l'.No.9i 5l pass appr()priate orders. However, there shall be SN,.I 2023 order as to cost. Miscel aneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S D/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY R.EGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department' Telangana Secretariat' Hyderabad.The Slate of Telangana ,t TheTelanqanaStateTribalWelfareResidentialEducationalln:;tituttons s',iEi"tl,', iiJ.rirjil) DSS Bil,Jn, uasao rank Hvderabad Flel' bv its Secretary.

3. The State of 'felangana' rep by its Secretary' Finance and Plann ng Department. Telartgana Secretariat Hyderaoao' 4 One CC to SRI OH GANESH Advocate [OPUC] 5.TwoCCstoGPt'ORSOCIALWELFARE'HighCourtfcrthe{jtar'eof Telangana. [t)UT' TwoCCsto(iPFORFINANCEANDPLANNING'HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana. [t)UT 7. Two CD CoPries w DD BS i t I I F F L L F L F t F i HIGH COURT DATED:30,t04t2025 ) ( c t- ') 216 ! 1 ORDER WP.No.93r.>3 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT COSTS \\ .odA w- ;-Jrtp