High Court · 2025

under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be ...RESPONDENTS t i f r I t $ 5 r F t i I ,,/ pleased to issue an or,ler or direction more particularly one in the n ature of Writ of Mandamus to detclar,: the in action of the respondents ir not r:otlnting the past temporaryserviceretlderedbythePetitionersondailywa.Jesandadhocbasisto reckonthesam(lforcomputationofqualifyingserviceasperCi'O'l\4sNo'156' Finance and Planningr (FW.PEN.1) Department, dated 29-04-'1983, lor the purpose to sanction of pe nsion Graturty ane other retirement.lcenef its on ev e of retirement of petitioners as ordered in similar cases in G.O frils. No. '1 79 ( {lct'ool Edu ( Proc .l)Deptdt.18-11-2aC2'bynotapplyingprincipleslaidbyHonbleliupremeCourt in the case of P.em Singh Vs, State of Uttar Pradesh anrj others in civil Appeal No.6798 of 2019 anrl batch dt.02-09-2019, (2019) 10 SC3 516), i;rnd in the case of Habib Khan V,:rser; State of Uttarakhand and others in C ivrl Appe:al No.'10806 of 2017 and batch dt. 23-08-2017. (2019) 10 scc 542), followed by Division Bench of this Honble ccurt in w P No 8201 0f 2016, dt.17-03-2016. and in simrlar case inWPNo.11735/2019dt.06.02.2023'ashighlyillegal,arbitrary,unjust' u nconstitution a I against the principles of natural justice, e'quity an I fair play and amounts to violation ,rf Articles 14, 16,21, 39(d), 43 and 300-A of our constitution and prays to di.ect the respondent herein to count the pre-absr:rption service rendered by petitionr:rs herein in temporary capacity on daily wage and adhoc basis from the y,lar ,1990 to 2013 till on regular absorptior of thair services in the year 2O13 for the p:rrpose of computation of qualifying servic.e ior sanction of pension Gratuity anc other retirement benefits by applying the principles laid by Apex court and Honble High court of Allahabad in the case o'' smt. Krishna Bembi Vs Appr:llate, authority dl. 25-05-2015, to the Petitioners; herein under Article 14'l of orr Constitution. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition urrder section 151 CPC praying that in the clrcumstilnces stated in the affidavit filed in srrpport of the petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents hert:in to consider the case of the Petitioners, to count the pre- absorption servi,:e rt:ndered by them on daily wage / adhoc bas s in temporary capacity from 1{)90 ,rnd 2013 to reckon for computation of qualilying service to sanction pension. C;ratuity, other retirement benefits as per (:i.O t\,4s.No.156, Finance and Plarnning (FW.PEN.1) Department, dated 29-04 1118i:], revised from time to time forthwitl- by applyrng the.judgment recently rendererd :y this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No- 1 1735 of 2019, dt.06.02 -2023 in the similarly situated case treating the petitioners as similar not as dissimilat. ' Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. CH GANESH Counsel for the Respondent No 1: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No 2,3 :SRI.P.BHANU FRAKASH S.C FOR KAKATIYA UNIVERSITY The Court made the following: ORDER F t HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.1 0600 0F 2023 ORDER Heard Sri. Ch, Ganesh, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri p. Bhanu prakash, learned Standing Counsel for Kakatiya University, Warangal, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos,2 and

2. Th-e pe'Litioners approached this Court seekino the praver as_!J!dCI! "...to issue i wit, order or directlon more parti:ularly cne in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare tne inaction of the respondents in not counting the past tempcri)ry servic,: rendered by the petitioners on daily wages & adhoc ba:;is to reckon the same for computation of qualifying service as per G.O.Ms.No.156, Finance and Plannirg (FW.pEN.1) Department, dated 29.02t.198:1, t,or purpo:ie t0 sanction of pension Gratuity and otl- er retirerlent benefits on eve of retirement of petitioners as ordered in similar cases in G.O.l\4s.No.179 (Sichool E:iu (Proc.-I) Dept dt : 18.11.2002. by not apptying principl,rs laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of prem Siinr:1h Vs. State cf Uttar Pradesh and others in Civil Aprpe:al ) SN. J wP 10600 2023 ..1 No.6798 of 2019 and batch dated 02.09.2019, (2019) 10 SCC 510), and in the case of Habib Khan verses State of Uttarakhand and others in Civil Appeal No.10806 of zOU and batch dated 23.08.2017 (2019) 10 SCC 542) followed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.8201 of 2016, dated 17.03.2016 and in similar case in W.P. No.11735/2019 dated 06.O2.2023, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, u nco nstitution a I against the principles of natural justice. equity and fair play and amounts to violation of Articles 14, 16,27,39 (d), 43 & 300-4 of Constitution of India and prays to direct the respondent herein to count the pre-absorption service rendered by petitioners herein in temporary capacity on daily wage & ad hoc basis from the year 1990 to 2013 till on regular absorption of their services in the year 2013 for the purpose of computation of qualifying service for sanction of pension Gratuity & other retirement benefits by applying the principles laid by Apex Court and Hon'ble Hlgh Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt.Krishna Bembi Vs. Appellate Authority, dated 25-05-2015 to the petitioners herein under Article 141 of Constitution of India and pass.... ". 3 T rments made bv the Detitione rs in th e affidavit filed itione in bri fas o re nt oetition isasunder: 3 SN. J \!'P 10600 2021 The petitioners were initially appointed in the year 19Bg and 199[r on daily wages, and in the year 1991 (25_10-1991) issued approval to award the pay scales to the petitioners against :he sanction post as per G.O.Rt.N o.lc-)4_.i, Edn, Educatior (UE.R) Department, Dt.07.10.1991. In fa:lt after nearly 17 y,:ars, vide Orders No.716/A4/KLJI2008, dated 09.04.2008, .xtended the Minimum time Scale benefit:,; to the daily wage/petitioners working at SDLCEKU, w.e.f., 01.04.20t)8, and awarded the Minimum Time Scale of pay i.e., Basic Pay + D)A + HRA + CCA and thus petitioners r,ve.e paid Minimum .[ime Scale of pay in respect of their p,csi. The: petitioners approached this Court aggrieved by the inaction of respondents to count the pre-absorption service rendered by petitioners her,:in in temporary capracity on daily wage & ad hoc basis frc m the year 1990 to:2013 till on regular absorption of their sr,rrvices in the year 2013 for the purpose of computation of qualifying service for sanr:tion of pension Gratuity & other retirement benefits by applying the principles laid by Apr:x Court and Hon',bre Hiqh c ourt of Ailahabad in the case of Smt.K.ishna 4 SN, J wP 10600 2023 Bembi Vs. Appellate Authority, dated 25-05-2015 to the petitioners herein under Article 141 of Constitution of India. \.j

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 24.11.2022 passed in W.P. No.7343 of 2019 and therefore the petitioners herein are entatled for the same relief as extended to the petitioners in W'P' No.7343 ot 2OL9.

5. The lea rn ed Assista nt Government Plea d er, disDut s ehalf of th res o aid submission made bvt he learned !f of

6. The releva nt oortion of the order of this Court i n No. 7343 of 2OL9. dated 24.LL .2022 in Dartic ular w.P. r No to8 10t L4a r *5. Under identical circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court in W.P.No.B201 of 2016 dated 17.03.2016 referring to Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 which deal with the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the purpose of piyment of pension held that the qualifying 5 S^-. J 0r;00 2021 service of a Government Servant shall comm€tn(.e the date: he takes charge of the post to \^/hich he is first app,rintt:d with substantively or in an officiar.ing or tem pore ry ca pacity. 6. Subject to the exceptions contaired in (..lauses (a) and (b) of Rule 13 of the Rules a t,3r,porary employe,e shall further satisfy the conditions :jtitrulated und(lr Rule 14 of the Rules for counting his t{trnporary service 1'or pensionary benefits. Rules 13 and 14 oF the Andirra Dradesh Revised pension Rules, 1980 deals with the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the FUrprg5s Of payment of pension which reacs as unrjer: ") -:i. Com encement of oualifvino se rvtce: Sublect to the provisions of the rules, quatifying ,;ervice of a Government servant shall commence from t,e date he lakes charge of the post to which he t:; first appctinted 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 susytended ,tien cn a permlnent persionable post prior to the, TZth Nove'mber, 1960, service rendered before attalni;tg the age of sixteen (16) years shall not c,cunt fcr any purpose;,1nd (b) in the case of a Government s,ervant nocovered by clause (a), service renderea, before attaining the age of eighteen (18) years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity.

14. (tonditions subiect to which service oualifi.'es: (1) 'rhe :;ervice of a Government servant sha,tt not qualiry d'rties are and pay untess his regulatecl tty the Governm=nt, or under conditions deterntined b,t the Governm=nt, 6 SN, J wP 10600 2021 (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 quatifying service by the Government." 7. The Division B nch vide its order dated clea rlv held L7.O .2016 i W.P.No. 8201 of 2016 ve that the Trib nal had riohtlv come to the concl ston servr ce shall be counted as qua I ifvinq that temDora enslo nu nde r RU les 1 3 a nd of D servrce 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules. 19 80. 8. Under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 2O.06.2017 passed in W'P'No'L77OO 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.6O47lCRP&RE/C- 2/)OLa, dated 10.10.2o18 and also communicated the to the petitioner thereunder vide letter .i.. Rc.No.B1O/4 L7O / 2OL5, dated 08. 1O.2018' for the DU D r

10. In W.P.No.1425 of 2OL9, 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 consideraiion for the purpose of pension' The Division Bench in its judgment dated 15.10.2019 referring to the judgments o1 thL apex Court reported in (2OO1) 10 SCC -+zJ St"t" of Tamit V. T.N. Registration Department Ministerial Service Assocaation at paras 9, 1O and 11 held hereunder: "g. Simitar view was taken by a Division Bench of the High Court of ludicature at Hyderabad for the State of Tetingana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in State of Andhra Pradesh V. M. Raja Rao and also the Karnataka High Court in B'H' Karnataka Power Tra n s m i ssio n Co rporatio n Li m ited' 7 SN..I \\'l' 10600 2021 7O. In view of the I doments of the Apex Court and other Hiqh Courts referred to abo've, we are'ol'the vtew that the Dast serviceof rior to e his reoula rizatio has to e consid,ered for the of Dens ionarv be nefits. lican who ret n

11. It is also to be noted here that the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.N7.6S24 of .2014 and baA.h oated 14.11.2014 were not chattenged and they -ordetrs of the have become final. Therefore, once the Tribunat are not challenged and have becomt: final, there is no other option for the authorities except to implsrnsnl the same." 11. The 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 hetd as under: " 35. There are some of the emptoyees wh,c have not been regularized in spite of having renctered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas thev have been su,cerannuated. As they have worked in f.he: work_ charged establishment, not against any particular proj,?ct, their services ought to have been regu,larized under tf,e Government instructions and even as per the deci:;ion of this Court in State of Karnatak,a versus Umadev.' (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down th,t!. in case services have been rendered for more than ten .vears without the cover of the Court,s o ler, as one-timc, measure, the services be regulitrizecr cf such emproyees. In the facts of the case, those enployees who havet worked for ten years or moret shotLlci have been re<lularized. It woutd not be propctr to re,gulate therrl fot consideration of regutarization as other:.; have been regularized, we direct that their se^/ict?s be treated z,s; a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shail not be entiiled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been coninued in service regu ia rly before attaining the age of supera n n Ltation Thev, shall be entit,led to recetve the Dension as if e bti hmen ave ret. t e r mr. ht fro u b e s -<- / I I I I i 8 SN, J wP r0600 2023 \ dav thev entered the work-cheroecl establish ment shall be counted as oualifvinq serv ce for ourDose of oension." L2. The iudq ent dated 23.08. 2OL7 in Civil AoDea ls No.1O8 O6 of 2O17 with nu bers 1O8 O5 of 2OL7 and 1O807 oJ 2Ol7 reoorted in (2O19 )10 scc 542. in Habi bKhanvS tate of Uttarakhan dat oara 6and7 it is observed as u nder: "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 Puniab. 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 iegulations applicable to the State of Uttarakhand are parl materia with the provisions of Rule 3'17(ii) of the 'eunjab 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 materii p-rovisions 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 taklng any other view except to hold that the appellants are entitled to reckon the period of work-charged service for purposes of I 9 SN.,I \vP l0r 00 loli n k imilar vi compuiation of "qualifying service for grant of pe:nsion We order accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the inrpuctned orders passed by the High Court." 13. 'll-he Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2O18 .filed before the Aoex Court Aoorieved bv the o in Civil Appeal No. datecl 2 3.08.2OL7 Dasse f 2OL7 in Habib Khan v State of 1080 Uttarakh and was dismissed bv the Aoex Court rs dat vide r o1.2018 nbv the Aoex Court in the iu qment .O1.2O22 in the State of G ulara and a others v Talsibhai Dha iibhai Pa observinq as follows: "It is unfor-tunate that the State continued to t;ak:: the services c,f the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 y'ears and there,after now to contend that as the s;ervices rende-ed by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to oension/pensiona ry benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wronr:;. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and theree fter to contend that an employee who has rendered .30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonabte. As a we:lfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken sr.ch a stand. In the present case, the High Court has not comm itted any error in directing the State to pay penrsicnary beneFii-s tc, the respondent who has retired ,after rendering Iore than 30 years service. Hence, th,l Special Leave petition stands dismis:;ed.,, Paras 15. LZ and 18 which reads as under: 14. Irr a iudqment of the AoexCourt in State of Jharkhand and others versus Jitendra Kumar Srivas tava and another reported in 2O13 ( 12) SCC 21O it wa held hat en on bount,y, b ut prooertv within t n emeaninq of Article are n ratu i l0 SN, J wP t0600 2021 ..t 3OO-A oftheconstitution of India. Paraqrao hs 16 nd L7 f the s o

16. The fact remains that there is.an imprimature to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is reiognized 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 authority of law"' Once we proceed on ihai premise, tl're answer to the question posed b US in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious' A person cann;t be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional 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 leave encashment without any statuto-ry provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced'

17. lt 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 iucn a iircular, which is not having force of law' the appellant cannot withhold even a part of pension or gi;tritv. As we noticed above, so far as stat story Rules 5r" .on.".n"d, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation'. Had there b""n any such provision in these Rules, the position would have been d ifferent. "

7. Tak n (a) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petit'oner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education' appearing on behalf of the respondents, II SN. .I iP 10600 2023 (b) The contents of the judgment dated

24.tL.2Ct22 passed in W.P.No.7343 ol 2OL9. (c) Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules 198O which clearly indicate that qualifying rservice 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 and the fact as borne on record that temporary service shal! be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under Rules 13 an(l 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised pension Rules 198O. d) The observations of the Apex Court and Other Courts irr the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:- i) The order of thas Court, dated passed in W.P. No. 7343 ol 2OL9. ii) ri2o(t1) 10 Scc 473 iii)((2020) 1 scc (L&s) iv) (:201,9) 10 SCC s42 v) 2013 (12) Scc 210 vi) Ihe judgment of the Division Bench Pradesh High Court, dated 17.03.2016 W.P.No.82O1 of 2016. vii) The iudgment of the Division Bench Pra<lesJr High Court, dated 15.1O.2019, W.P.No,1425 of 2019.

24.Ln..2022 of Andhra passed in of Andhra passed in t2 SN. J wP t0600 2021 The Writ Petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to consider the request of the petationers 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 pass appropriate orders. However, there shall be no order as to cost. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. L SDI-S. MAL LIKARJ UNA RAO SIST ANTRE GI T I'TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER Ed u catio n g,X8l'i: """' con'iinui n g Ed u l:: .: - : at, cation, l!: 5:H5U,T :?T j:fi $1" ?':' ffii fi::Ii: ;I,?;*ru:: *ln,ro,'n" Kakatiya University' Hanamkonda F T t t Y To, 1 2 4 One CC to SFrl CH GANESH AdvocateloPucl 5. Two CCs lo GF' FOR HIGHER EDUCATION ,High Ccurt for the State of Telanganir. [O JT] 6 One CC to SII|.P BHANU PRAKASH S.C FOR KAKATIYA' UNIVERSITY 7. \wo CD OoPit>s ft- DD BS i{ :l a I r t P F I r i I ,. r i I r t t F r r b F ]r i' HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.10600 of 2023 r-i:=::\ ,l!, .J C l-) 2 2 iiA' 206 'r t. .i ,l ,-i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \o coP(ea H- aa\: \ac