The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. CH GANESH Counsel for the Respcndents: Gp FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.8275 of 2O23 ORDER Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I representing all the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on record. 2 Tha nalitiarnar rrrr.rrarra hed the Cou ri caalziner fha Draver a follows: "......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 06.02.2002 to 24.O4.2006 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 30.09.2020 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 { 2 \ peti':ion,:r on contract basis from the yearr 06.O2,.tCCt2 to 24.04.2006 in the responder,t Departrrr:nt to reckon the period for computatio,r of qu,:li..ring service to sanction pension, gratuit,/ and other retirement benefits to the petitioner ar; per tl-e Ftr:vised pension Scheme Rules 1980, witr arrears along with interest from the date cf retirerne:nt: of petitioner w. e. f. 30.09..2020 on attaininll age of superannuation with a I consequer tial monetary benefits by awardinrl exorbitant costs against respondents for their inder:ir;i,: rr for 16 long years in forcing thr,r petitione,rs to approach this Honble Court fo.. justii:e to apply the judgments rendered in thr,r similarl)/ :;ituated cases in W. p. No. 11735 of .101!) dt 06 )2. 2023 and the principle taid by the: Honbrle !iLi treme Court in the case of Devarakond;r Srilal<shrri Vs Government of A. p. (2010 2ALt, 165) t r,rjer Article 141 of our Constitution in th€ present case treating the petitioner as similar tc therr no: as dissimilar as per the principal laid by the Flcni:le Supreme Court in C. A. No. 6260-6.261 of 2C2L rlt 26. 10. 2027 2021 (6)ALD 285(SC) and pass...'

3. It is s:tr:cif ic case of the petitioner that the Respondent Departmenl ii not taking any steps to count the :em itorary service rencle-,:l on contract basis by the petitioner.frcm the I J year 06.02.2002 to 24.04.2000 in the Respondent Department to sanction regular pension gratuity and other sN.l retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980 on retiring from service on 30.09.2020 due to inaction of the respondent Department for more than a decade in spite of petitioner's repeated requests for the same. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

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.LL.2O22 passed in W.P.No,7343 2O19 and hence, the present writ petition could be allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated

24.LL.2O22 passed in W.P.No.7343 2019.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 2O.O6.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.177OO of 2016 one Sri P. Dasharadham, approached the High Court for the relief as prayed for I 4 I in the Wril: petition and the same was implemented by the respondents therein vide Lr-No.6O47ICRP&RE/C- 212OL8., ctated 1O.10.2O18 and also communicaited the same to the petitioner thereunder vide letter Rc.No.B1.O /4 t7 O / 2015, dated 08. 10.2018' 6 Lea rn d Ass stant Govern ent P lea Servicesdjlpoearinq on behalf of the respondents does not diso uts.,- the said submissions made bv the learned lf of co nsel a D eart ne r. DISCU S I NA ND CON LUSION:-

7. SutsLee and(b o'f 1 h ses (a) olovee n st ulate ndit n shall fgrth er Ru le 14 !,lL the Rules for countino his temDorarv' service arv benefits. Rules 13 and 14 of the. Andhra les, 1980 de ls with the Pra qual ifvinq service of ate DOrary emolo ee for the tnder:- esh llevtsed Pens ion R "73. Commen cement of oualifv,ino service: :l;u iect to se Ee--gL--A the dat(.: he takes Gove J chzrd of the substa tivelv or in a officiatino or temDorerv t to which he is first aDDointed either Dacitv: Provided that - (a) in the case of a Government servant in a Class IV seryice or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent persionable post prior to the 17k 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 nocovered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen (18) years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity. : (1) The to wh 14. service of a Government servant shall not qualiFy duties are and pay unless his regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. (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." ualifi n

8. Ina iudqment of the ADex Court in S te of Jharkh and and other versus Jiten dra Kumar Srivastava and another reDort d in 2O13 ( 12) SCC 210. dated L4.O8.2O13 it was eld that oen sion and oratuitv are t boun eme ntn Articl 300-A of thi: Constitut ion of India. ParaoraDhs 15 and of th as un

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-A of the Constitution of India reads as under: "300-4. Persons not to be deprived oF property save by authority of law No person shall be deprived of his 6 l. \ "i'gratuity .or prop,erty save by authority of la v " Once we pror:eed on ir,;ri p-,irrise, B the answer to the quest'on post':d b US in iii' ti,rginning of this judgment becomes too r:bvious' A ,rr,,rr,,u".unnoi be depiired of this pension witl out the uuii:.i i,v of law, which is the constitutional rnandate in Article 300-A of the Constitrltion lt follows part of tnit ,tturpt of the appellant to take ayay ? "rtnii..,O even leave encashment without p."ti,,ii any sitatutory provlslon and under the tlmb -age of acnriri;:rative instruction cannot be countenanc(')d' 1,'. Ii hardly needs to be emphasized that.the e:<ecutive instr,rct ons' are not having statutory character and' tn!,:.lio", cannot be tern ed as "law" within the ,",ri',iil,1bf the aforesaid Article 300-A' on the basis of ; tircular, which is not having force- of aw' the ;fi uiri.f ,,nt cannot withhold even a part of pension or g[ti, iy ni ;e noticed above, so far as stat' stc)rv Rules J." ,,,u."rn"d, there is no provision for witrholding Hird there ;; tir. or gratuity in the given situation . [.,,i ,nV srich provision in these Rules' the position wo tlcl have been different' 'fher Division Bench of erstwhile AP High Court 9. vide ats order dated L7'O3'2OL6 in W'P'No'8201 of 2016 very clearly' held that the Tribunal had rightly r:ome to the conclr.rsion that temporary service shall be counted as qualify'ing service for the purpose of pension under Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, n.98'O.

10. ThCr- q ment dated 23.O8 .20L7 tn Civil Aooeals ers 10805 of 20L7 and thn umb No.1oEQ$-- of 20L7 wt / - 7 ( 10807 of 2OL7 reDorted in 2019) 10 SCC 542, in Habib Khan v State of Uttarakhand at paras 6 and 7 ,t 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 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 "qualifying service For grant of pension 8 W,3 orce:r accordingly, allow these appeals and s3t aside th3 lrrt)ugned orders passed by the High Court,"

11. Ther tt,eview Petition (C) No.9 of 2O18 filed before the Apex Court Aggrieved by the orders dated 23.O8.?.O]-'.7 passed in Civil Appeal No' 1O8O6 of llo17 in Habib Kharr v State of Uttarakhand was dismis;sed by the Apex t!ourt vide orders dated 16.O1.2O18 L2. In W.P.No.L425 of 2OI9 . similar circu m s'taltges, considetcd--the i sue whe the Division Bench of the Hiqlr Court the oast servl ces. of the aoplicanLJ2Iior to their reoularization can be-!a!en into considejalign for the DurDose of Be nch in it:; iudqment dated 15.1O.2O19 referrinlr to the iudomejlllof the ADex Court reDorted in (2OO1) 10 SCC 473 Sta!e,- of Tamil V T.N. Req stration Deoartment Ministejlt-l- Service Association at oaras 9 10 .and 11 ,)ivision held helC!!!der: "9. ljirrrilar view was taken by a Division []enr h of the High Orturt of ludicature at Hyderabad for the State of Tel,algana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in State of Anrlhi: Pradesh V. M. Raja Rao and also tl-'e K'arnataka High (.ourt in B.H. Karnataka Power -[rarsmission Corp o -ation Limited. // -,, 9 sN.i 1O. In view of the iudoments of the Aoex Court and other Hiqh Courts referred to above, we are of rnnliarr+ a h who is th rior to his at the of th resDondent herein- onside ization h r Eensionarv benefits.

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 74.1L.2014 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."

13. The Aoex Court in the iudo ment reDorted in (202o 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar ) Pradesh and others- at oara 36 held a u nder: "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 instructions 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 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 shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service l0 \ reqL l,rrlv before attaining the age of superannuation. The',r:;rall be entitled to receive the pensiorr as; if they hAJC-J'etired from the reqular establishment and the s]lrvices rendered bv them riqht from the dav the)t__ ente red the work-charoed establi ghal!-tLe counted as oualifyino service for ouroose ofJrgl!Sion," t4. A slt!!-ilar view was aken bv iudome.El- riated 18.O2.2 O22 in Petition for Soecial f Leave to ,A.DDea I (C) No. tlogl2022 in the S e Aoex Cou in the r G uia rat- and thers v Talsibh ai Dhaniib hai . Patel, o ervrnq e_s_follqtvsi "It s u,rfoi-tunate that the State continLred to l:ake the s(rrvi:€s of the respondent as an ad-hoc flr :10 years and tlrr:reafter now to contend that as the services ren,jered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entltlo(l to pension/pensionary benefit. The Sitat"l cannot br: perrritted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To tak,: :he Services continuously for 30 yei:lrs and tf,e"eirft:er to contend that an employe'-' v"ho has re:nil,:re d 30 years continues service shall not br,r eligible for p,r;15166 is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare S1.ate, the State as such ought not to have takerr such a startrJ. In r.l-e llresent case, the High Court has; not committed an) 3r'or in directing the State to pay pelsionary benef l:s; to the respondent who has retirr':d after rende rilg more than 30 years service. Heni:rl, the Special Leave Petition stands disrniss;ed'"

15. This Court opines that the specific plea ptrrt-forth by the re:;pondents that the petitioner is eligible only I I I for countang their services from the date of her 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 cannot be deprived of her constitutional right for counting the past sertice rendered by the petitioner on contract basis for the period from the year 06.02.2002 to 24.04.2006 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 law, except by authority of law since pension is not a bounty, but property within the meaning of Articte 3OO_A of the Constitution of Indaa. n n id a

16. T tn 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 t2 Assistant rSovernment Pleader for Services-I appearinE on behalf ,cf the respondents. c) Ihejultsments of the ADex Co referred tc, and extra cted above) and aoarn elh€L..llourts( n I isted below:1 i) 2013 (12) SCC 210, dated 14.08.2O13 ii) Dirrision Bench of erstwhile AP High Cor.rrt vide its order dated 17.03.2O16 in W.P.No.82O1 of 2016, iii) (:2019) 10 scc s42 iv) 'Ihe Review Petition (C) No.g of 2O18,, dated 16,O 1.2018 v) (2001) 10 SCC 473 vi) (i2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) vii ) lPetition for Special Leave to Appeal l.C) No. LLA9,t 2022, dated 18.O2'2O22 d) Rule 1.13 and 14 of the AP Revised Pensiorr Rules, 198O ( referred to and extracted above) which clearly indicates that qualifying service of a Government servant sh,all commence from the date he or she takes charge of the post to which he or she is first aplrointed either substantively or in an officiating or tenlporary capacatll. The Writ Petition is allowed and the resplrndents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner to count the l:emporary service rendered on contrar:t basis v,l l) by the petitioner for the period from the year 06.02.2002 to 24.04.2006 in the Respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qualifying service to sanction pension gratuity and other retiremeht benefits as per revised pension rules of 198O in accordance to taw, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner 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 cost. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand ctge9,q. ro, //TRUE COPY// sD/- M.OSMAN ALt BA|G ASSISTANT R+ISTRAR sEcTtgN oFFtcER

1. The Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Government of Telangand, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The_Commissioner, Department of Aytish, Government of Telangana, Floor TSGLI Building, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

3. The Secretary, Finance and Planning Departmenl, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. One CC to SRl. CH GANESH Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CCs to GP for Services-I, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies KKS HIGH COURT' DATED:1 6lA6'12025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.8275 of 2023 :=-- =;:*.:- I L ".:' ) o li. t1 N \t'. :, NI, 'i i ;, \\ :.. i! :. ti .,! t -,,_i r. : r. , '-i'.': :.1:::: .. ' -THE ALLOWING WITHOUT CCISTS WRIT PETITION { b ?,7