High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be 'Uttar pleased to issue an c,rder or direction more particularly one in the lature of writ of ivlandamus to' decla-e the action of the respondents in nc,t counting the past t"rporrry servic= rerrdered by the Petitioners in the continger t establishment from the'dats of their nitial appointment to till the date cf regularization for of qualifying service as per G-O Ms Nc 156, Finance and "o.r.n."*"nt planning (FW.pt:N.1) Depirtment, dated 29tO4t1983, for the purtr)ose to sanction ot pln.ion basel on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 9999 Pradesh and others in civil Appr:al No. 6798- of erem singn Vs Sta.:e of 2019 and-batch Jl.oi'.togl2o19, and the same was reported ir (20:20) 1 scc(L&s) i and (201g) 1 I S(lC 51 6, and in the case of Habib Kl- an \/erses state of Uttarakhand anc otl- ers in civil Appeal No.10806 oI .2O17 and batch dt.23-08- ZOiZ *r,i.t, was reoorted in (2020) I SCC (L&S) 28, (2019) 10 SiCC SeZ,'-12!in Review Petition ( c ) No. 9 of 20'1 8; dl.16t11t2O1B, in Civil r\ppeal No 10806 of 2017, in the case of State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Habib l(han and others and the same w.rs reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 31 (1) (2019) 10 SCC 545 and basing on the Diuisicn Bench Judgments of this Hon'ble cour. in VV.P. No. 8201 o1 2016, dt.17to3l2o16 and the orders of this Hon',ble court in v/P No.17700 0f 2016, dI2)to6l2)17, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, uncont;titut onal against the orincioles of nartural iustice , equity and fair play and prays to direct the r&po'ndents he,ein to count the pre-absorption service ot Petit oners herein in temporary capa()ity ir the contingent category for the purpose of commencement of qualifying ser rice for sanction of pension and other benef its to the Petitioners herein. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition u,rder Section 151 CPC praying that in the ciroumstances stated in the affidavit filed in s.rpport of the petition, the High court ma1, be ;:leased to direct the respondents her:in to consider the case of the petitioners, t() count the pre- absorpiion servi,)e o,'the Petitioners on temporary capacity fr:r commencement of qualifying servic: to sanction pension and other benefits as per G O'N/ls No '1 56, Finance and Pla rnin,J (FW.PEN.1) Department, dated 2910411983 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH. GANESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll The Cqurt made the following: ORDER 3 HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.10046 OF 2020 ORDER: Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned couns-el appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondents. )2 e titioners a r h seekin ptayer as under: ".......to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not counting the past temporary service rendered by the Petitioners in the contingent establishment from the date of their initial appointment to till the date of regularization for commencement of qualifying service as per G.O.Ms.No.156, Finance and Planning (FW.PEN.1) Department, dated 29/04/1983, for the purpose to sanction oF pension based on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others in Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2Ol9 and batch dt. 02/09/2019, and the same was reported in (2020) 1 SCC(L&S) 1 and (2019) 10 SCC 516, and in the case of Habib Khan Verses State of Uttarakhand and others in Civil Appeal No.10806 of 2077 and batch dt. 23-08-2017, which was reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 28, (2019) 10 SCC 542, and in Review Petition ( C ) No. 9 of 2018, dt. 16/01/2018, in Civil Appeal No. 10806 of 2017, in the case of State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Habib Khan anC others and the same was reported in (2020) l SCC (L&S) 31 (1), (2019) 10 SCC 545 and basing on the Division Bench Judgements of this Honourable Court in W.P. No. 8201 of 2016, 4 dt...7/03/20L6, and the orders of this Honourable Court in WP No.17700 of 2016, dt.2o/06120t7, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, u n con stitutiona I against the principles of naturaljustice, equity and fair play and prays to direct the res,rondents herein to count the pre-absorgrtion service of Pet tioners herein in temporary capacity in the contingent catrlgcry for the purpose of commentement of qualifying ser'/ice for sanction of pension and other cene:fits to the Pet tioners herein and pass such order or orcers in the int€ rest of justice..... "

3. fhe specific grievance of the petitioners; is that the responde rts lre not counting the past temporary service i.e., from the date: of petitioners initial appointment to the date of regularizartior, rendered by the petitioners in tho co ltingent establish rnen':, for commencement of qualifying s(rrvic3 as per G.O.Ms.Nc.15;6, Finance and Planning (FW.PEN.1) Department , dated 29.04.1983 for the purpose of sanctior of pension based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem S;ing 1 Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others in Civil Appeal Nlo.679B of 2019 and batch, dared 02.09.20t9 reported 'n (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 1 & (2019) 10 S(:C 516, and in the case of Habib Khan Vs. State of Uttarkhand anc Others in Civil Appeel No.10806 of 20t7 & batch, dated 23.08,2017 reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 28, (2019) 10 SC(:54,2 and in Review Potitic)n (C) No.9 of 2018, dated 16.01.2018, in Civil 3 Appeal N0.10806 of 2017, in case of State of Uttarakhand and Others Vs. Habib Khan and Others and reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 31(1), (2019) 10 SCC 545 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.B201 of 2016, dated

17.03.2076 and the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.17700 of 2016, dated 20.06.20L7. Aggrieved by said action of the respondents, the petitioners approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition. PERUSED T E RECORD

4. The Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated

17.03.2016 in W.P"No.B201 of 2016 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.

5. Under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 20.06.2017 passed in W.P.No.17700 of 2016 one Sri P. Dasharadham, approached this Court for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ petition and the court was pleased to 4 grant -he rerief as prayed for thereunder and the same was implenrented by respondents lher,:in vide Lr.No.(i047'ICRP&RE/C-2l2018, dated 10.10.2018 and atso commL nic;rted the same to the petitioner ti ereunder vide letter Rc.No.B10/4170/2015, dated 08.10.2018. The petitiorer l-erein pleads for similar relief to the pretitioner.

6. The A ex Co rti 1 SCC (:L&s )in rem Si n hv Stateof uttar Pra others, u m t P ra 6 t u orl:ed tn 2020) sh n "36. There are some of the em ploy nttt [3gn;g gularized in spite of ha vrng services for 30-40 or more yea rs where :;uperannuated. As the y have worke< b€,en ch a rqt:d esta blishment, not aga inst a prlject, their services ought to have bee ur der the Gov ernment instructions and ev decision of t his Court in State of Karn Urradr:vi (3) 1 1. This Court in the said dec down I.hat rn case services have been rend, th;rn tr:n years without the cover of the Cor on 3-trrne measure the services be reg u la en plo)/ees. In the facts of the case, thos who h ave worked for ten years or more be,:n.,:gularized. r :es who have renrlered the as they have J in the work- 1y pa rticu lar n re:gu la rized en es per the ataka versus ision has laid :red for more rrt's order, as rized of such e erlployees should have T I made r:lear that they shall not be entitlec an)' drtes of difference in wages had cortinued in service re gularly before attair of l;u pe ra n n uation. t F r owever, it is to claiming thely been ring the age 5 n as if the from th +he Itarl recrular establishment and the services rendered work- ev entered the bv them rio ht from the da th v sha ll he co unted charo d oualifvi no service for ouroose of De nsion," esta blis me nt ve reti raA h t

7. Th iudoment re orted in (2019 ) 10 scc 542 Habib Khan v State of Utta akhand in Daras No. 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 of pension.

7. As already observed, the provisions of Reg ulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations app licable 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 whv the oeriod of service rendered not see on work-cha ro ed basis bv the aooel lants sh ould u rDoses of co outationof not be counted for r orant of Den sion. The pa ri rvice" "oua lifvino D 6 Tlatrlria provisions of Rule 3.17 (ii) of the t)unjab Civit )er! ices Rules having been interpreted and understood n tlre above manner by this Court in N,:rata Sin gh we r w c tiil d o Ieck o r r r all w !n uqned orders ot findan v room t o hold th t e err d es of m uta ion of " f to w n tak nq a el an work-ch asr e r th a t e r n thesea pass ed e e c &_Jhe_ c u A r v tvl A a s

23.08.201 7 llab!E-@ the Aoex Cou rt vide order similar ed be re o rde rs dated h IN 108 6 f 20t7 tn ilElrilssed_by

6.01 ,2o1 8 and a w was taken bv the A ex t in the iudoment dated 18.01.2O22 in the State of!.rgAlat_arld others v Tal bh h n ha Pat vrnq as follows I ''It is i,lfortunate that the ,State _continued to take the services of the respondent as an ua_no, rii si iiirr"un| [n!r"un", no* ro :ont,?nd that as the services *r;;r;;;;\iiJ )LiJp,rrd"r, uru 1! hoc, he is not entitted to pension/pension)r.y Eenefit. fhe st.te ,:,1nnot be permitted t" t"l" lii'd"riii'o7 lrr"i*, *rors. To tak2 the Services continuously for so y.u)r"),'a- in,:reuner to c-ortenc that an emptoyee who has ,"noJiJid'rZ)r, contirues serrict shal not be etioilte. r", iiiriri"i'"nZ:nirg tut unreasonabte. As a wetfare s-ate, n[ iiiti"as'-:,uii ought not to tave taken such a stand. r, iiL iiiriZuZZ,,inu,u,sn corn !1:^!^": i"y-itted any e.rror in alrectinj-il''sltaLe to pay pens.tondry benefits to the respondent wio nis-)Jiirua aae, renJering more than 30 years service. nence/ the Special Leave petition stands dismissett.,. rl.*a -<t_{a: i-, !,.- .rr: r I l 9 n u nt of A ex rt in e Jharkhand and others versu s Jitendra umar Sriva and another reoorted in 2O13 (12) SCC 210 it was held that oension a nd oratu itv are n t bountv but oro rticle 30 O-A of the Constit within the meaninq of ofI dia. Para oraohs 16 and 17 of the said iudq ent are extracted here nder:

16. The fact remains that there is an imprimature to the legal principte 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 autiority of law." Once we . proceed on that premise, the a'nswer to'the question posed b US in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be. deprived of -thii pension without the authority of law, which is the consiitutional 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 lea.ve 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 turned as "taw" within the meaning of the aforesaid Article 300-A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of taw, the appettant cannot withhold even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as stat story 'Rules are Zoncerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation' Had there. been any 'such provi{ion in these Rutes, the position would have been d ifferent. " {- 8 1 Asi il r view wa h A x (:ou rt in ludqm e te 1 o2 o 2i t e of GuIar ta d h n h Pat bse rvi nq as others v -l-a I fo llows: "it is unfortunate that the State continued to take the sen,ices-of the respondent as an ua:r,o. ioi ,10 years and. thr:reafter now to contend that as the services ::?ll:r?i by the respondent ur" uO_to.,' ie is not enti':ted to pension/pensionary Oenefii. rn!'!;tat€r cannot be r)erntitted to take the benefit "*i,"*rlng. To ipk. the Services continuously fo;-;;'y"ars and ,'*.,o therraFt,3r to contend that ;; u,i_lprJyi,, hu. rendered 30 years continues service shall,not be eligible for ,ension is nothing Ort un.easonabl; ;, "a wetrare Stat,:, tl-e State as suih ought not to have taken such a In the present case, the High Cou-t has not comrnittt:d any error in directing ih" -;;te to pay pens onary benefits to the responO"nt *f.]o after ren Jering more than 30 y"u.a ,urvia"." "' retired stanrJ. -f.]us li, "f Hence, the d is m isseri . " Special Leave petitic,n sta nds

11. Leilrned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; placed retiance on the judgment of this Court, dated 24.11.2022 passed in W.p.N o.7343 of 2O19 and contends that the petitioners are entifled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioners in the present 9 Writ Petition and as granted to petitioners W.P.No.7343 of 2O19. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for L2, Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submissions made by the learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

13. In view of the settled law on the subject issue pertaining to reckoning the period of work charged service for purposes of computation of "qualifying service for grant of pension and the observations of the Apex Court on the subject issue in various judgments (referred to and extracted above). This Court opines that petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner herein. L4. Takino into consideration a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned _'I I : I I I I I i : , 10 Assistant Government pleader for liervices-II, appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The order of this Court, dated tZ4.11-.ZO22 passed in W.P.No. 7343 of 2019. c) Itr_e. iudoments of the v tS_SO.[SteO EAow:- fneterreA to a i) Judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, orde:r dated ,.7.O3.2O1G passed in W.p.No.8201 of 2O1G ii) Judgment of the Andhra pradesh High Court, order dated 20.06.2017 llassed in W.P.No.17700 of 2016 1ii) The judgment of the Apex Court in prem lSingh Vs. State of Uttar pradesh and others reported in (2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) iv) The judgment of the Apex Court in Habib Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in ( 2019) 10 SCC s42 l1 v) The judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Gujarat and others Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, dated LA.O2-2O22 The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners to count the temporary service i'e', pre-absorption service rendered by the petitioners herein in temporary capacity in the contingent category before the regularization of the petitioners services, for the purpose of commencement of qualifying service for sanction of pension and other benefits to the petitioners herein as per G.O.Ms'No'156, Finance and Planning (FW.PEN.1) Department, dated 29'O4'1983 in accordance to law, by duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments referred to and extracted above within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and pass appropriate orders, and duly communicate the decision on the subiect issue to the petitioners herein' However, there shall be no order as to costs' I I ! I i i I I To, 1 2 3 t2 lvi islle lla neous petitions, if any, pending n tlis Writ Petition, s harl stand closed. //TRUE COPYII one fair copy to rHE HoN,BLE MRS JUSIcE ,u*.r:ilit?I, (For Her Lordship,s Kind perusal) OFFICER DA SD/.P. CH. NAGAB DEPUTY HUS MBA RE STRAR The Princrrral S ecretarv. Fducation Department. Telanga .la S{)cretariat, The State of Tr lanqana, HVderabad I he PrinciDal Secretarv. panchayathraj Department. Tela ngarra Secretariat, The State rf Te.langan6. Hyder6bad. I he Princit)al Secretarv. Finlnce and planning Department. T,:langana Secretar,a' The Govt.'of Telangana, Hvderad'ad-'- The Comnissicner of School etuiriion]boitlii telrng.nr, Hyderabad. I?:"?:ilT'"'' ner or Panchavit"ii, c"'t "ir"l;;;;;; H i;r'y;;;A;.., I[:,,::fl,:i,tf:retary Union of rndia, Ministry of Law, Jrrstic<> and company Jlio,&T'i,til.rJruJ"nn'na Advocates Association Librarv, High court 4 5 6 11L.R. Colries. , u 9, 9n" CC ro Sri (lH Ganesh, Advocate IOPUCI 'o l|,i"?rt5}l'toG..Frror 11.Two CD Cobier; services ll' Hish cd'i'i t"iin" state o't etzrnsana, at " TJ 4 HIGH COURT' CC TODAY DATED:18t0312025 i ORDER WP.No.10046 of 2020 4 t) 1 fli: ii i41 A AP I 2[25 :T C; 2 O,t ,r,: .. r! i{i:.. k DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I ,l^ \ft {