High Court · 2025

1'1 . Dr.E.Laxmi Devi, D/o, E.Srinivas Reddy, aged 49 yrs, Occ.Senior Medical Officer, Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, Karwan, Hyderabad District.

12. Dr.A.Narayan Rao, S/o. A.Vittal, aged 56 yrs, Occ.Senior [iledicdl Officer, Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, Jannaram, lvlancherial District.

13.Dr.K.Ambika, Dio. K.Jaipal, aged 49 yrs, Occ.Asst. Research Officer, Govt. Research Department, 1t-lome51 Ramahthapur, Hyderabad District l4.Dr.Ch.Jyothirmayi, D/o. Ch.K.R. tVlurthy, aged 46 yrs, Occ Senior lvledical Officer, ilsl Hosiital, (Homeopathy) Nacharam, Hyderabad District. 15 Dr.B Sachi-r Chandra, S/o. Ramesh Chandra, aged 52 y's. Occ Senior Medical Of icer, Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital' Erragadda, Hyderabad Distrtct' 16. Dr.G.Nomya, S,'o. G Laxman, aged 50 yrs. Occ. Senior l\rlediczrl Officer, Govt' Homeo Dispens ary, Mahabubnagar HQ, lvlahabubnagar Districl'

17. Dr.K.Aruna Ga'rathrr, D/o. K.Prabhakar Rao aged 5'5 yrs C)cc. Professor' DT.BRKR Ciovt. Ayurvedic College, Erragadda, Hyderabad

18. Dr.J. Harikir;han S/o. trrlangya, aged 51 yrs, Occ. Senior i\'4edical Officer, Govt Ayurvedic I)ispe:nsary, HQt Khahmam , Khampam D strict '19. Dr.Gyanes-rwar, S/o. Veeranagam, aged 59 yrs' Occ. Profess'or A'L Govt' Ayurvedic (lollege. Warangal.

20. Dr R Sarola, D/o Bhikya, aged 46 yrs, Occ.Medical Officer (''ovt Ayurvedic Dispensaiy, Ashwaraopally, Jangoan Diskict. 2 l. Dr Ch.Venkates hwarlu, S/o. Ch.shankaraiah, aged 57 yrs, Occ. t\4edical Officer, Govt. Ay.rrvedic Dispensary, Bhiknoor, Kamareddy Dtslrict'

22.Dr A,Jangaiah s/o. Ramaiah, aged 55, Yfs, o99 Senior lt4edical officer, Govt Ayuiredic Dispensary, Ghatk-esar, Medchal Malkajgiri Disrtrict

23. Dr Ch.Ranesh Kumar, s/o. Kanakaiah, aged 58 yrs, ocr; lienior lt/ledical Offrcer, Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, Pembarthy, Jangoan D'stt ct

24.Dr.H.Kokya, S/o Vasram, aged 52 yI9, O.cq IMedical Offrcer, ()ovt Ayurvedic Dispensa'ry', Gollapudi Village, Wyra Mandal, Khammam Disirict'

25. Dr. B.Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. B.Devanandam ' aged 57 vrs Occ' Medical Officer, Grtvt. Homeo Dispensary, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kottagudem District.

26. Dr. M.Anitha Dr-vi, D/o. late M.Narsan Goud, aged 47' yrs, {)c:;.Asst. Medical Officer, Govt. lndian Medicine Pharmacy, Katedan, Hyderabad.

27. Dr.tr/l.Vasa rtha t-akshmi, D/o. M.Narsimha Rao, aged 54 yrs, Occ Senior ttledical Ollicer Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital (Teaching) Warangal. Warangal District.

28.Dr.K Jaoar, Morana Charv, S/o. Shankara Chary, aged 56 yrs Occ' Senior Medicaiof ficer. Govt. Ayuivedic Hospital (Teaching) . Wararrgal.

29. Dr.K.Vasarrtha, D/o. Chandraiah, aged 56 .yrs, Occ. [,4edica Officer, Govt' Ayurvedic l)ispt;nsary, Ameenabad, Warangal.

30. Dr.K.Srinivasa lao, S/o. Laxmaiah, aged 57 yrs, Occ.Senior l'4edical Officer, Govt. Ayurredit, Poly Clinic, King Koti, Hyderabad. 31 Dr.G.Manjeera, D/o. G.Durgaiah, aged 57 yrs, Occ [\4edir:al Officer, Govt Ayurvedic l)ispt:nsary, Siripuram, Sangareddy District.

32. Dr J.Gangadas Sio Gangaram, aged 54 yrs, Occ Senior [4edical Officer, Govt. Ayurredic: Dispensary, Nirmal, Nirmal District

33. Dr. S.Raghu, ll/o. Dhananjeya, aged 58 yrs, Occ.:Senior [Uedical Officer, Govt. Ayurredic, Dispensary, Tatikonda, Jangoan District.

34. Dr S.Madhavi. I)/o S.Ramanatha Sharma, aged 59 yrs, Occ I'Iedical Officer, Govt. Ayurredicr Dispensary, Dichpally, Nizambad District

35. Dr. S.Vani D/o. Venkateshwara Rao, aged 59 yrs, Occ. Senior lVledical Officer, Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, Adilabad HQs, Adilabad [.)istrict.

36. Dr Waseerr Anjum, D/o.lVld. Abdul Saleem, aged 54 yrs, Occ. Medical Officer, Govt. Ay:rvedic Dispensary, Mudwin, Rangareddy District. I F tl. r r .i .l I ,! ,f, .t it. 37 -Dr.P.Kian Kumar, S/o. Rajaiah, aged 55 yrs, Occ Senior lvledical Officer, Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, Secretariat, Hyderabad District.

38. Dr.Rajendra Kumar Goge, S/o. R.L.Goje, aged 57 yrs, Occ.Associate Professor, DT.BRKR Govt. Ayurvedic College, Erragadda, Hyderabad District. 39. Dr.K.Ch.Narsimha Rao, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, aged 59 yrs, Occ.Senior Medical Officer, Govt. Homeo Dispensary, Khammam District,

40. Dr. K. Padmavathi, D/o. Venkataramana, aged 54 yrs, Occ. Senior Medical Officer, Govt. Homeo Dispensary, Nalgonda Drstrict.

41. Dr.K.Sanjeev Kumar, S/o, Sadanandam, aged 59 yrs, Occ. Senior . Medical .Officer, Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

42. Dr.A.Sekhar, S/o. Laxmaiah, aged 54 yrs, Occ. Senior Medical Officer, Govt. Homeo Dispensary, Old MLA Quarters, Hyderabad District.

43.L.Shyam Sundar Prasad, S/o Bhikkhulal. aged.57 yrs, Occ. Senior Medical Officer, Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, HQs Sangareddy, Sangareddy District. 44.Dr.Ch.Ruth, D/o.Sekhar Babu, aged 51 yrs, Occ. Senlor Medical Officer, Govt. Homeo Dispensary, Ameerpet, Hyderabad District.

45.Dr.D.Shobha Rani, D/o.D. Srihari, aged 57 yrs, Occ. Senior Medical Officer, Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, Erragadda, Hyderabad Diskict.

46. Dr. L. Anita, D/o, L. Surya Prakash . aged . 52 yrs, Occ. Professor Dr. BRKR Govt Ayurvedic College , S.R. Nagar Hyderabad District.

47.Dr. M. Laxmi, D/o. M. Kotinagaiah, aged . 53 yrs, Occ. Associate Professor Dr. BRKR Govt Ayurvedic College , S.R. Nagar Hyderabad Diqtrict.

48.Dr. P. Mayura, D/o. P. Prathap Reddy, aged 53 yrs, Occ. Senior Medical Officer, Department of Ayush, Opp. Pass Port Office Secunderabad Hyderabad District.

49. Dr. G. Praneetha, D/o.G.B.Gandhi, aged 53 yrs, Occ. Medical Officer, Government Homeopathy Dispensary , Zaheerabad, Sanga Rgddy District. 50. Dr. M.K. Vishwamber, S/o. Kurumaiah, aged . 55 yrs, Occ. Senior Medical Officer, Government Homeopathy Dispensary Karimnagar District '1 '10s. Karimnagar District 51 Dr R.Arqna, Wo. N.Dayakar , aged 51 yrs, Occ. Senior Medical Officer, Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, Kondanagula (Vill) Balamoor Mandal , Nagarkunrool District.

52. Dr- Rukhsana Anwar, D/o. Syed Anwarullah aged 56 yrs, Occ. Senior Medical Officer, Govt. Ayurvedic , Hospital , Medak District . ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 The Stateof Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health, tt/ledical. and Family Welfare Department, Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Commissioner, Department of Ayush, Government of Telangana, 5th Floor TSGLI Building, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS f L b F F t ." FI I t i i i ,] ;l I i etition under Arli: e 226 of the Constitution. of lnclia prayrng that in the circumstances state:d in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issur: an order or. direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to decla -e the indecision of the Respondent Departm,::nt in not taking any steps to c,runt the temporary service rendered by petitionr,:rs in offrciatrng position on conlract basis against sanctioned posts {or wc,rkrng as medical officers from the year ?.002 to 2006 on par with regularly engaged [r/elical Officers of respondent department for all service purposes to sancticn pensicn, gratuity and other retiremenl berrefits as per revised pension rules of 1 980, c n their attaining age of superannuatron as highly illegal, unjust, unfair arbrtrary itnd violation of Article 14, 16, 211 39(d), 43 and 300-4 of our constitutior and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the past service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis from the year 2002 to 2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the perrod for computation of qualifying service from respectivt.r date of initial appointment of petitioners on contract basis on consolidated tr;ay to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioners; on attaining their .1980 with all age of superannuati,ln as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rulers consequential rnon€,tary benefits by applying the judgment rendered in the in W.P.No 11735 ot 2019, dt.06.02 2023 as per the similarly situated c€rses principle laid by the Honble Supreme Court in the case Devarakr;nda Srilakshmi Vs Government of A P.. (2010 2ALD 165) under Article 141 of r:ur Constitutron in the present cas€) treating the petitioner as similar to them not as dissimilar as per the principal laid by the Honble Supreme Court in C.A.No.6260-6261 ot 2021 , d1.26. 1 0.2021,(202 I (6)ALD 285(SC). lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumsti:nces stated in the affidavit filed in strpport of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to direct the Respondent heroin to make eligible the petitioners for sanctrcn of pension, gratuity and other rotrrement benefits as per revised pension t:lules 1980 by counting their past service rendered from the year 2002 to 200€ on temporary basis in officiatir)g p:sition against sanctioned posts of their cadre as medical officers under cortract basis on consolidated pay in the respondent depa(ment for computation of qualifving service from the date of their inrtial appointment, as per I t f I F F F rI F t t iI r the judgment rendered in similarly situated case in W.P.No.11735 of 2019 dt 06.02 2023 . Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. CH GANESH Counsel for the Respondent NO 1,2: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW Counsel for the Respondent NO 3: GP FOR Finance and Planning Department The Court made the following: ORDER r F h r L EI F t.!I r ; h g. 't I{ON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION N0.9206 0F 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned cbunsel appearing on behalf ,of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Governnlenlt Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Thr: Detition erS ADD hed this Court see kino the prayer as under: "....to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandanrus to declare the indecision oF the Respondent Department in nct taking any steps to count the temporar)/ service renclererl by petitioners in officiating positic n on contract basis against sanctioned posts For working as mecical officers from the year 2002 to 2006 cn par with regularly engaged Medical Offlcers of respcndent department for all service purposes to sanction pen:;ion, gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revi:;ed lension rules of 1980, on their attaining itge of suporanluation as highly illegal, unjust, Jnfair arbil-rar1'& violation of Articles 14, 16,21 39(d), 43 & 300..A of the constitution and prays to direct the respond,:nts herein to count the past ser,/ice ren Cered by the petitioners on contract basis from the year 2002 to 2006 n the respondent Department to reckon the 2 SN,J W.P.No.9206 2021 period for computation of qualifying service from respective date of initial appointment of petitioners on contract basis on Consolidated pay to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioners on attaining their age of superannuation as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rules 1980 with all consequential monetary benefits by applying the judgment rendered in the similarly situated cases in W.P.No.11735 of 2019 dt.06.02.2023 as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Devarakonda Srilakshmi Vs Government of A.P., (2010 2ALD 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 2021, dt.26.t0.2027, (2027(6)ALD 285(SC) and pass such order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. Th case of e rs in brief ave m nts made b e itioners is as under: n the affidavit fil resen wrt e n The petitioners approached this Court aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents to count the past service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis from the year 2002 to 2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qualifying service from respective \ 3 SN,J W.P.No.9206 2023 date of initial appointment of petitioners on contract basis on Consolidated pay to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement be nefits to the petitioners on attaining tht,:ir age of superannuati()n as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rr.tles 1980 with all consequential monetary benefits by app ying the judgment rerndered in the similarly sitLlated llases in W.P.No.1 173!; of 2019 dt.06.02.2023 as per the principle laid by the llon'ble Supreme Court in the case De!'arakonda Srilakshrri V:; Government oF A.P., (2010 2ALD 165) under Article 141 of our Constitution in the present :ase 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- 6267 of 2021 dt.26.10.202t, (2021(6)ALD 285(SC) 4, It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the cetitioners that the subject issue in the present writ petition i:; squarely covered by the order of this Ccrurt dated

24.11.20,12 passed in W.P. No.7343 of 2Ol9 and therefore the petitioners herein are entitled for the same relief as extended to the petitioners in W.P. No.7343 of 2019. 5 Ther learned Assistant G nt Pleader, aDDearrno o n beha lf of the res Don d ents does not disoute 4 SN,J'.\ the saad submission made b he le a aoD earinq on behalf of the oetitioners. W.P.No.9206-2023 r counsel

6. The relevant Dortlon of the ord of this Court in W.P. No. 7343 of 20L9. dated 24.11 .2022 in Da rticular Da ra Nos. 5 to8&1Oto14are extra here u nder. r "5. Under identical circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court in W.P.No.B201 of 2Ot6 dated 17.03.2016 referring to Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 19BO which deal with the qualifying servlce of a temporary employee for the purpose of payment of pension held that the qualifying service of a Government Servant shall commence from 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 satisfy the condltions 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. Com encemen t of oualifvino serv,ce: 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 capacity: 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 17th November, / 5 SN,J W.P.Nc,.9206 2023 1960, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen (16) ye,ars shall not count for any purpose; and (t) in the case of a Government servant nocovered by clau:;e (a), service rendered before attaininq the age of eighteen (18) years shalt not count, except for corl pen sa t io n g ratu ity.

14. eo_Dditions subiect to (1) The service of a Government servant shall not quatify duti=s are and pay unless his regutated by the Governroent, or under conditions detT:rmined by the Governrnent. .fies: (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the e;:pression service means service under the Government and paid by the Gov=rnment from the Consolidated F,und of the State but do<:s not inctude service in a non- Sterrsionable establishment unless such service is treated as ctualifying Service b)/ the Government." 7. The Divisi n Bench vid its order dated L7.O 3.2 O.L6 in W.P.N o.82O1 f2 O16 verv clea rlv held h tem orarv service shall be ounted as ouali vinq servlce for the DurDose of And h ra Pnadesh Revased Pensron Rules, 1 80. nsion u nder Rules13a d1 nclu nth had r hfl 4

8. Under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 2O.06.2017 passed in W.p.No.LZZOO of 2016 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.6O4t /CRP&RE/C-2 /?:OLB, dated 1O.1O.2OI.8 and also communicated the same to the petitioner thereunder vide tetter Rc.No.B1O/4L7O/2OLS, dated O8. 10.2018.

10. In W.p.No.1425 of 20tg, under similar circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court considered the issue where the past servicei of the applicant prior to their regularization can be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. The Division Bench in its judgment dated 15.1d.2O19 referring to the T 6 SNJ\ W.P.No.9206 202'l iudgments of the AOel_Cog{ reported in (2oo1) 1o scc 473 State of Tamit V.. T.N. fi"Sirtruiion Department Manisteraal Service Association ut p"u-rJ, iO and 11 held hereu nder: "9. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the High court of rudicature at Hyderabad riiin" state of Telangana and the State of anifiia iiuA"rn''i'n state of Andhra pradesh V. M. Raja Rao and alsolhe Xarnata*a High Court in B.H. iarnataka poii, - irurrmission Corporation Limited. e v a h n n nsi e

70. In view of u e tudom en of the Aoex Co rt n other re f th vtewth t the past serv,ceofth eaD licant, who th re I I n t he h th of 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 14.11.2014 were not chattengel ani 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 ti-imitement tne same." h n I ar b fi, l. !2O?O). 1 SCC (L&S) in erem Singh-, St"t" of Uttar Pradesh and others, at para 36 held is unalr: "36. There are some of the emptoyees who have not 'ren'dered been regularized in spite of having the services for 30-40 or more years whireas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work_charged establishment, not against any particutar project, tlteir s_ervices ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even is pe, the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka vers'us lJmadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has taid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten yeai without the cover of the Court,s order, as one_time measure, the services be regularized of such emptoyeei. In the facts of the case, those employees who worked for ten years or more shoutd have been regularized. It woutd not be proper to regutate them ir consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a ' {-i", 7 SN,J W.P.I(o 9206 2023 regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference tn wages had the,y been continued in service regularly before attaininel the age of superannuation. entitled to receive the enston as if thev have retired from the reqular estabJisJttDeot aod the services rendered bv them riqht'from the dav thev entered the work-charqed establishment shall be counted as sualifvins service for DurDose of Dension." e

12. The iudqment dated 23.O8.2OL7 in Civil Aooeals No.1O8O6 of 2Ot7 with numbers 1O8O5 of 2OL7 and 10807 ot 2OL7 reported in (2O19) 10 SCC 542, in Habib Khan v State of Uttarakhand at paras 6 and 7 it is observed as under: "6. The pari materia provision contained ln Rul(: 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules had been struck down by a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Hary,3na High Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab. -'-he challenge by the Stat3 against the aforesaid decision of the Fr.rll Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was neg;rtived by this Court. The matter came up for consideration before this Court, once again, in Punjab SEB versus 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 l)unjab and Haryana High Court was perfectly justified in strikirg down Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules resulting in obliteration of the distinction made in the:;aid Rules between "temporary and officiating service" and work-charged service on the said basis, tl-ris Court took ther view that the period of work-chargec service shou ld re reckoned for purposes of computation of "qualifying service" for grant of pension. 7. As already observe(j, the provisions oF Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations applicable to the State of Uttarakha nd are pari materia with the provisions; ol Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, discussed above. 11' that is so, we do not see as to why the period of service rendered on work-charged basis by the appellants should rrot be counted for purposes of computation of "qualifying service" for grant of pension. The pari materia prov siors of Rule 3.1-7(ii) oF the Punjab Civil Services Rule:; having been interpreted and understooc in the above manner by this Court in Narata Singh wr: do not \}- ( 'r t 8 SN, W.p.No.9206-2023 |nd any room for taking any other view except to hold that the appeilants are.entitled to .ect on-t'n"J period of work-charged service f - s .J; ; " ;"."'s ;X'J ";;' r".: rffl , " q u a r'y i n s' "J.o ll accordingly, allow these appeals and set aslde the impugned orders passed uv trrJ Hlsh ioit.Ti' ' il,t: t' h 1 R vt Peti 1 r o, u il w e ib at U a d s a d in th r 6 rd rs da ed ta enb th o 2 2i iD a h beforet he Aoex Cou rt Aqo ievedbv the orde d te 23 .08 .20 L7 as ed in Civi Ao DE IN o. oa of 20 1 7in Habi b v StateofUttarakhan Khan di m s xCo h A VI e imilar vte a en d t 1 th rsv al

6. L.20a s P el ob {'It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the service-s of the respondent as an aO_f,oi foi30 y;;; ;;; thereafter now to contend that as tn" .eiril"s rendered -noi'entiUed by the respondent are ad_hoc, ne is pension/pensionary benefit. inu Stutu-'cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 3O yeais anj'ifrereaner to :?nlgnd that an emptoyee who has .enOe.eO 30 years continues service shall not be eligible Er pension is nothing but unreasonabte. As a *efrlie-siJte, the State as such ought not to have taken such a ,tanO. ' In the present case, the High .Court has not committed any.error in directing the State to pay pensioniry benefits to the respondent who has retired jdui'lu-nal.ing rno.u than 30 years service. - Hence, the Special Leave petition stands dismissed.,, Paras 15, L7 and 18 which reads as undei: -- " 1 ar h flv s 1 o .A 3 a m t n o h n u d w b e n I e e ex Co f e er re e v rsu en on n th m fI dia. er: a un f r t a s 1 m s e ra h 1 o .qrr' E -I 9 SN,J \\'.P.No 92t16 2023 16. Tl-re fact remains that there is an imprimature to the legal principle that the right to receive pens;ion is recognizecl as a right in "property". "Article 300-A of the Constitution of india reads as under: "300-A. Fersons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law No person shall be derprived of his property save by authority of law." Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question losec b US in the boginning of this judgment becomes too obvrous. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional m,andate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. .[t 'ollows that eLtterlpt of the appellant to take away a llart of pensicn or gratuity or even leave encashment withr;ut any statutrtry provision and under the umbra,qe of administretive instruction cannot be countenanced.

17. It harCly needs to be emphasized that the r3x.:cutive instructions are not having statutory character- and, theref,lre, cannot be tern ed as "law" within the n'eaning of the aforesaid Article 300-A. On the basis oF :;uch a circular, rarhich is not having force of law, the appellant cannor: withhold even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticeJ atrove, so far as stat story Rules are conr:erned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the gi'ren situation. Had there been any sur:h provision in these Rules, the position would have been different, "

7. Takinq into consideration: (a) 'lthe submissions made by the learned cr:unsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, (b) The contents of the judgment dated 24.7L.2022 passed an W.P.No.7343 oJ 2Ot9. I i t l"l 10 SN W.p.No.9206_202i (c) Rules 13 and L4 ol the Andhra pradesh Revised Pension Rules 19gO which clearly indicate that qualifying service of a Government Servant shall commence from the date he takes iharge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity and the fact as borne on record that temporary service shafl be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under Rures 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) The order of this Court, dated 24.11.2O22 passed in W.P. No. 7343 of 2019. ii) (2Oo1) 10 scc 473 iii)((2020) 1 scc (L&s) iv) (2019) 10 Scc s42 v) 2013 (12) scc 210 vi) The judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra ll{9:h High Court, dated 17.O3.2O16 passed in W.P.No.8201 of 2O16. vii) The judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra IIrJS-.t High Court, dated 15.10.21tgt passed in W.P.No.1425 of 2019. The Writ Petition is altowed and the Respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioners to process the pension proposals of the I ,/ SN.J W.l'.N o.9206 2023 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 (03) weeks from tlre rIate 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 alrpropriate orders, However, there shall . be no order as to cost. Mi;cellaneous applications, if any, perrding shall stand closed. \ SD/-P //TRUE COPY// N pbr,,rl DE,PU _ - N ABHA REDDY TY RE .SECTION OFFICER rtment, langana. 3 To, 1 2

4. 6 lx""5,lliy"i'"??ffi',ry;#:3:L$$:i:[ls'5ss'lv#"l11t?if ili]t,,suatffi d"fl ,xtH":l:'415::',?'"J'$n";'lorre:anoa ina nce and P ra n n i n g D€' p a rtm iiitn*ll t.*:l L"JilPi,xf On" CC,to SRI CH GANESH Advocate [OPUCj Two Cos to GPJOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW 'High Telangana IOU I I Court frrr the and Pranning Department 'r1ish c na,5th ent, State of ourt for the lu:".i;l::,ffiI:brJ?i.*

7. Two CD CoPies DD SB HIGH COURT DATED:30 t0412025 r,tr r 41 ::= =--:r\ r,^. + J o () /t \ ?.iI llAY M (' . / ,,,2 ORDER WP.No.9206 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WTTHOUT COSTS C,flA \;,.r4' "1 't i i rf, ,k I i I