Dr.lvl. Raja Veeru v. 1. The State of Telangana

situatedcaSes;it-tW.t)No11735of2019,dt.06/02l2O23.aldthepr.inciplelaidby the Honourat,le Sup reme Court in the case of Devarakonda Srilakshmi Vs GovernmentcfA.P',.20102A1D165)UnderArticlel4lolourCorstitutioninthe present.casetreatinEthepetitionerassimilartothemnotaSdil.;SimilaraSper the principal laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in C A Nc 6260-6261 of 2021, dt.26t1ot2o21 , (2021 (6)ALD 285(SC) IA NO: 1 0F 2"023 Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunT stances stated intheaffidavtfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtma)'bepleasedto direct the Respondent herein to make eligible the petitioner 1cr sanction of pension, graluity and other retirement benefits as per reviserj pension Rules l g80 by courrting tho past service rendered by the petitioner on t':)mporary basis under contract service in the respondent department as l\,4edical officer for computationofquaifyingservice,aspertheJudgmentrende'edinsimilarly situated case irr W P,No.11735 of 2019, dt.0611212023 Counsel for l:he Petitioner: SRl. CH. GANESH Counsel for i:he Respondents: AGP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT P ITION No.92OO oF 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetitioner aooroached this Court seekinq the Draver as un de r: "....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 0B-01-2002 to 25-04-2006 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 31-05-2016 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 0B-01-2002 to 25.04.2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qualifying service to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rules 1980, with 2 SN,J S'.P r.- c.9200-2023 arrears along with interest from the date of retirement of petitioner w.e.f.,30.04.2018 on attaining aqe of r;upera rnuation with all consequential mc,netary l)enefiti by awarding exorbitant costs i:rgainst respon lents for thelr indecision for 16 long yr:ars in 1'orcing the petitioners to approach this Hon'bler Court l'or justice to apply the judgments rendered in the :;imilary situated cases in W.P.No.11735 c,f 2019, rlt,06 C2.2023 and the principle laid by the llon'ble Suprenre Court in the case of Devarakortda Srilskshmi 'y's Government of A.P., (2010 2ALID 165) under .Article 141 oF our Constitution in the preser t case :reatin I the petitioner as similar to them Ilot as lissimilar as per the principle laid by the llon'ble Suprerre Court in C.A.No.6260-6261 of' 202-I, 7t.26.10.2027, (2021 (6)ALD 285(SC)and pass such crder r>r orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. '' the oetitioner in brief as. oer the 3. The case of a-YcrElenls made bv the Detitioner in the affidavit fil dbv resent wr t e the-pcliElqner I ton ts as ultdeli 'The petitioner approached this Court aggrie','ed by the inaction of :he respondents to count the past servic'3 rendered by the petit oner on contract basis from the year 0U-tl1-2002 to

25.021.2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the period for c:omputation of qualifying service to sanction pension, SN,J W.P.No.9200_2023 gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner as per 3 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 awarding 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 similarly situated cases in W.P.No.11735 of 2019, dt.06.02.2023 and the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devarakonda Srilakshmi Vs Government of A.P., (2010 2ALID 165) under Article 141 of our 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- 6261 of 202t, dt.26.10.202r, (2021 (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 squarely covered by the order of this Court dated

24.1t.2022 passed in W.P. No.7343 of 2019 and therefore the petitioner herein are entitled for the same relief as extended to the petitioners in W.P. No.7343 of 2O19. 4 SN,J $I.l'.1ro.9200 2023 The learned Assistant Government Plea der. 5 appearinq on behalf of the resDondents does not dispute the said submi !earned c ADDE afln q on behalf of the Detitioner.

6. The relevant portion of the order of this Court in \4{.P. l{o- ii343 of 2019. dated 24.t1,2O22 in particular Dara Nos. 5 to 8 & 10 to 14 are extracted hereun d er. '5. Jnder ldentical circumstances, th€, Divis or Bench of the Hilh Court in W.P.No.B201 of 2016 dated 1 7.03.2016 referring to Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revise d Pension Rules, 1980 which deal with the qualifl ing service of a temporary employe(t for the purpo:;e of payment of pension held that the qualifying servicr: of a Government Servant shall commence from the dete he takes charge of the post to which he is first appoir ted with substantlvely or in an offlciating or temporary capacity.

6. Subject to the exceptions contained in (.)iauses (a) and (tr) of Rule 13 of the Rules a temporary employee shall further satisfy the conditions stipulated r.rnder Rule 1,4 of the Rules for counting his temporary ,;erv ce for pensic nary benefits. Rules 13 and l-4 of the Andhra Prades;h Revised Pension Rules, 1980 deals with the qualiff ing service of a temporary employer: for the purpor;e of payment of pension which reads as u nder: "13. Commencement of oualifyins service: Subject to the provisions of the rules, qualifyittcr service of a Gov?rnment 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 : ,)rovided that - 5 w.p.No.e2oo zsli (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 1y'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 not count, except for compensation g ratu ity.

74. Conditions subiect to which serv ice oualifies (1) The service of a Government servant shatt not quatify 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 establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government."

7. The Division Bench vide its order dated 17.03.2O16 in W.P.No.82O1 of 2016 verv clearlv held that the Tribunal ad riqhtlv come to the c nclusion that temDorarv service shall be counted as ou lifvinq service for the ouroose of oension under Rul es 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension ules, 198O.

8. Under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 2O,06.2017 passed in W.P.No.L77OO of 2015 one Sri P. Dasharadham, approached the High Court for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ petition and the same was implemented by the respondents therein vide Lr.No.6O47lCRP&RE/C-2 /2018, dated 10.10.2018 and also communicated the same to the petitioner thereunder vide letter Rc.No.B1O/4L7O / 2OL5, dated O8.10.2018.

10. In W.P.No.1425 of 2(J19, under similar circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court considered the issue where the past services of the applicant prior to their regularization can be taken into t, 6 SN,J \\ .l).|.o.9200 2023 consideration for the purpose of pension. The Division Bench in its judgment dated 15.1O.2O19 referring to the judgnrents of the Apex Court reported in (2OOI) 10 SCC 473 State of Tamil V. T.N. Registration Department Ministerial Service Association at paras 9, 1O and 11 held hereunder: "9. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the High Court of )udicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telanqana and the State of Andhra Pradesh ;n State of Andhra Pradesh V. M. Raja Rao and also the Karnataka High Court in B.H. Karnataka Power 'rr,ansmission Corpo.ation Limited. 7O. In view of the iudo ents of the ADex Court and other Hiah Courts re rred to above, we are of the view that the past service of the applicant, who rior to his reqularization, is the resDondent herein, has to be considered for the of en I nar benefits. 11, It is also to be noted here that ,lhe orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6524 of 2014 and batch dated 14.11.2014 were not challenged and they have beconre final. Therefore, once the orders of the Tribunal are not challenged and have become final, ti\ere is no other option for the authorities except to im ptsmsnl 711. sa me. "

11. Ihe Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2O2O) 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 ,'egularized in spite of having rendered tne services for 3)-40 or more years whereas they l;ave been superannuated. As they have worked in the wo,.k-charged establishment, not against any particular prciject, their servic'?s ought to have been regularized under the Govertment instructions and even as per the decision of this Ccurt in State of Karnataka versus Umaclevi (j)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case servicr)s have been rendered for more than ten years withoLtt the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measL,rel the services be regularized of such t:mployees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have workeT for ten years or more should t;ave been regularized. It would not be proper to regulatr:: them for consideration of regularization as others have been 7 SN,J W.p.No.9200 2023 regularizedt we direct that their services be treatedTs 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 n ,ve a e reoular establishm ent and the ret,, d from services ren ered bv them ht from the dav thev en red cou ted as oualifvtno servtce for DurDose of pension." en t -cha h

12. The iudo ment dated 23.08 .2OL7 in Civil Ao eals No .10805 ot 2Ol7 with num rs 1O8O of 2017 and 10 8O7 ot 2OL7 reoorted in ( o19) 10 scc 542, in Habi Khan v State of U rakhand at Daras 5 and 7 t tsobserved as nder: "6. The pari materia provision contained in Rule 3.t7(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 basls, 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. T. 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 l { 8 SN,J W.P.No.9200 2023 find any room for taking any other view ex(:ept to hold that the appellants are entitled to reckon the period of work-charged service for purposes of computation of 'qualifying service for grant of pension We order :ccordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the mpulned orders passed by the High Court." o.9 of 2018 filed 13. The Review Petition (C) before theA Dex Court Aoorieve db the orders dated 23 .OA.TOL7 Dassed in Civt A DDeal No. 10806 ot 2017 in Habib Khan v State of Uttarakhand was dismissed bv the Aoex Court vide or L6.q 1.2018 and a similar view was taken bv the Court in the iudoment dated 18.01.20 2 in the State of Guia rat and others v Talsibhai Dhaniibhai Patel observino as follows: ''lt is unfortunate that the State continued r:o take the servir;es oF the respondent as an ad-hoc for 3r.) years and thereafter now to contend that as the servicr,:s rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entiUed to pension/pensionary benefit. The State r:annot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to r:ontend that an employee who has rendered 30 years contir'rues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothirg but unreasonable. As a welfare Stat€, the State as su:h ought not to have taken such a stand. In th e present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionrery benefits to th,l respondent who has retired after rencering more than l0 years service. llenct:, the Special Leave Petition stands Cismissed." Paras 15, 77 and 1B which reads as under: 14. In a iudoment of the Aoex Court in State of Jh r hand and oth S riva stava and another reoorted in 2013 ( 12) SCC 2to it was held t at Dension and qratuitv a bountv, but orooertv within the meaninq . of Article 3OO-A of the Constitutio nof India. Par aqraDh s16 7 of the reDort states as u nder: n Jitendra versus 9 SN,J W.P.No.9200 2023 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 beconies 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. Takinq into consideration: (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.LL.2O22 passed in W.P.No.7343 of 2019. (c) Rules 13 and 14 ot the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules 1980 which clearly indicate that 10 qualifying service of a Government SN,J \\r. ).'.tro.9200_2023 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 fac't as borne on record 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. d) ]fhe observations 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, dated 24.11.20,22 passed in W.P. No. 7343 of 2O19. ii) (2o01) 1o scc 473 iii)((2o2o) I scc (L&s) iv) (2019) 1O SCc s42 v) 2o13 (12) SCC 210 vi) The judgment of the Division Bench rrf 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 15.1O.2019, passed in W.P.No.1425 of 2019. 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 order sanctioning the pension and pensionary benefits by duly computing the service from the date of initial I i I i I I i I I I I I I I i , I i I I l I SN,J W.P.No.9200_2023 appointment of the petitioner for the purpose of sanction of pension along wath interest from the date of retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 3O.O4.2019 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 law, 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 shal! be no order as to cost. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR ION OFFICER d Welfare Department, Health, Medical Fami ly d. rtment of AYush, Governme Government of Telangana , Secretariat, T.S.,H Floor TSGLI Building. Tilak Road, Abids, HYd erabad 'l . The PrinciPal Secretary, nt of Telangana' 5h 2. The Commissioner, DePa 3. The Secretary, Finance and Planning DePartment. Telangana Secretariat, 4 o;'Citd-Snt. cn. cANESH, Advocate I9PUCJ ;. i;; 66ii"-dp Fon sEnVCes tt-,Hish'court for the State of Telansana at 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] T.S..Hvderabad. BM KV HIGH COURT DATED::3010412025 ORDER WP.No.9200 of 2023 CC TODAY o a t ; ) .tn ?1 \triri '(';,---., '_-_..- I --- -: ii TI11 f I ^* + ,).. ..+, ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I )) I i I r t I i i I I