1 A.Satyanarayana v. 1. The Slate of fgl?ngrlq

Petition un66,r Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances statr:d rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ or mandamus setting aside Mento No.82421 N 3201 A1IHRM/ Vlll 2017 Dt.22.7.2017 (page 194 )and Circular memo no. 12OGl476l A1l HRM/ vllt 2}bll Dt. 13.12.2017, ( page 195) issued by the Respondent No 1 and also in not considering the petitioners' representation dated 1 1 .01.2019 (page no. 68) for release of retirement benefits Iike surrender of encashment of leave, gratuity and pro-rata pension as iltegal, arbitrary and against the principles r:f natural justice and violative of Article 14, 19,21 and 300A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently issue directions to Respondent No. 1 and Ors to issue appropriate orders for payment of retirement benefits; like encashment of earned leave, gratuity along with interest, pro-rata pension duly considering petitioners' representation dated 11.01-2Ct19 in the interest of justice and equity. (As per C.O. dated 24.03.2025, vide lA.No.2 ol 2O24 in WP.No.12275 of 2020' Prayer is amended) lA NO: 't OF 2020 Petition underr Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dire,:'t the Respondents to release Gratuily, arrears of DA, EL, PRC, increment and APGLI to the petitioners forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under order vr R 17 of cpc r/w section 'r51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to amend the prayer in the main petition as follows: it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to receive the Additional Material papers in w.p.No.12275 of 2020 namely (1). Neat copies of extract of service'' register - A.satyana rayana, G.Adivaiah, P. Narasimha Reddy, s Venkateshwar Rao, (ii) Neat copies of impugned order vide circular No.8242-A1329/At/HRM-vil/2017 dated 22-o7-2017 (iii) circular Memo No.1206l470tA1rHRM-v1'u2017 dated 13-10-2017 (iv) circurar No.20928l264lPSCl2008 dated 18-12-200s (v) Synopsis of w.p.No. 1 22 7 st2o2o (vi) covered Judgment delivered by Smt.Justice Madhavi Devi in w.p.N o.27219 of 2021 , in the interest of justice and allow the l.A. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt N.JANARDHAN REDDy counsel for the Respondent No.l to 3, 10 to 12: Gp FoR FINANCE PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.4to 6: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI D.RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.B & 9: Gp FOR LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.13: Gp FOR SERVICES-!|| The Court made the following: ORDER o HON'BT.E MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA w TPE TIO o.1 75 F20 ORD ER: Heard Sri N. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos'I to 3' Sri D.Rama Krishna, learne{ counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 and the learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill appearing on behalf of the respondent No.13.

2. The oetitioners aDDroached this Court seekinq the Draver as un er: Respondents in not other pensionarY t,c issue an order, direction, writ rnor(l specifit:ally, a Writ of Mandamus declaring tht: re lea sin g action c,f the benefitr; pensio'-t and includi'r,q Gratuity, EL arrears, PRC arrears, Dl\ arrears;, APGLI and increment as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and pass r;uch other order or orders as th ir; Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in thr: circu rn sta nces of the case."

3. The case of the petitioners, tn brief, is that the petitioners were denied all retirement benefits, including pension, gratuity, and arrears, by the Respondents. Despite being redeproyed to the District Emproyment office and working there until retirement, the petitioners were not paid their dues. Though the petitioners submitted representations to the Respondents requesting the respondents to release the retirement benefits namely pension, gratuity, arrears of pRC, Group Insurance claimed and D.A. arrears, however no action had been taken by ttle respondents on the said rep resenta tions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. T c D 4 n e f n o on f e N e a r d r "It is further informed that brought to my notice the names of all such employees "*no *".u absorbed in SMpCs have been removed from tne rolls.of the corporation. The e.p.r., iciouni"i in" -*!.e employees have been closed. rf.,eir. narn", also not considered under bifurcatior- oi-uniiuo A.P.S.C.R.I.C. Ltd., by the sniera inioe Committee. o 3 Therefore the entire issue has lleett submitted to the government through tht: Lr.No.E1lRlClAdmnl 1329/2019/504, dated 26.04.2011) by the Managing Director an(j requested the APC & Principal Secretary' t() Government to Agriculture & Cooperatiort Department to kindly send a suitable reply to th': Finance Deoartment (HRM-VII), Department tc' pa / the retirenrent benefits to all the ex-employees cf A.P.S.C.R.l.C:. Ltd., who are retired from servi':e itr SMPCs of various Telangan'a Districts and conl:inue all the ex-r:mployees of APSCRIC Ltd', Hyderaba'l who are still working in various SMPC:; c'f Telangana Districts in including payment of salarles of every nronth in terms of G.O.Ms. No./24, clateC 09.01.200;1, as all such'staff have joined in Sl'4PCs as per approvals of the competent Authority on permanent absorption basis. After perusal of the proceedings mentioned above frorn time to time I am of the opinion that since the names of all such employees who were absorbed in SMPC have been removed frorn the rolls of the (:orporation. The E.P.F., account of the employees have been closed and their names were also not r:onsidered under bifurcation of united A.P.S.C.R.l.C. Ltd., under IX Schedule Institutiors by the Slhiela Bhide Committee and all the employees; deployed from APSCRIC Ltd', have been allor:ated employees-ID numbers and new GPF Accounts were opened in the name of each and every employee deployed to SMPC, Fanga Reddy anii other District from the Corporation and have ber:n completely detached from th e Corporatic,n and further certain ex-employees rlf the Corporation who were retired while working n SMPC have been paid retirement benefits (earnerd leave encashment etc) by the employee aFt(lr deploymerrt to SMPC, tirement benefitsto to se le the retired emplovees of t e distri emolovment exchanoe, Ranoa Reddv District who Ugere the CorDora tion is 4 district a sorbed a absorotion basis.,, 5 h r V d P u 2 t 4 r hereunder: L 2 2 M th la a n L 87 T MDlovme t a n t a o "1-7a In a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State cf Jharkhand unO oinu., u]:it"no.u Kumar_srivaslava and another ."port"d ,'lbl: (12) SCC 210 it was hetd that purril" ,- n_li,,, b^1r1r.v but property within the ,"#ino or ::-",1^ot Artrcte 300-4 of the Constitution oi- inZiu. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the .upo.t-rtutu;; ,;;"r, "16. The fact remains that there is an . lT?.]i?!y. ro the tesar principte il.tlt in"'rigii ro rece,ve pension is recognized as a rigni in "property". Article 300_A oi tn" Conrtitrti"" India reads as under: "f "300-4. persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law._[io p"iron shall be deprived of nis prope.ty';.;";; authority of law.,, Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question oor"j i" us in .the beginning of this judgm"rt 6!."i"1 too_ obvious. A person cannot be Oeprivea o-f tnrs pension without the authority of faw. which is the constitutional mandate'""inri""i in Article 300-4 of the Constitutio". itf"ifo*, that attempt of the appeilant to tite-awa-V'J a part of pension or gratuity qr even l:?Y: encashrnent without any statutory provl:ilon u"a u nder the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced' 1;7. tt hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not ha'ving rtututa,.y character and, therefore, cannot b€: ["i*",r as "law" within the meaning of th€) iiorerai,t Article 300-A. On the basis of such zt circuta t , which is not h'aving force of law' thel .pp"fi."t cannot withhold even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above' so tar as statu[ory Rules are concerned, the'e i:; no provision for withholding pension or oratult.y in the given situation' Had there heen iny tr.f, provision in these Rules, the positior'l would nave beel different""' t rt n r

6. The rellev nt c dated O4.Oq 20 e P 7l f 2t ex ra d hereund er: h " L 21. Having reg ard to the rival contentions and material on record, this Court finds thal for all practica Purposes, the Petitioner was in itia llY appointed in resPondent N o.6 orga nizatir:n and subsequently been deputed to respondent No.3 in the year 2013. Th o1 r s r r f T h t N n h PS erstwhi le to res on dent No.3 or: anr zation and have h deni al of the same bvt ere DOn ents in thetr refore. Ifth esa id The f s r affid VI h emoloy leave a e e t e e m t n n e h s e u I 6 \ a so is elio ible for he sa me. Th e resoondents differe t stand in the ca eof can ot take the etitioner alone while oermittinq relief to other similarlv olaced oersons. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are on the eligibility of a person to receive pension or gratuity upon his superannuation. In this case, this Court finds that the respondents are not denying the eligibility of the petitioner to the retirements benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment and pension but are only saying that the petitioner is eligible for such benefits from its parent organization i.e., respondent No.6. Admittedly, the respondent No.6 is financially weak and after the bifurcation of the States into Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the name of the petitioner has not been included in the list of employees of respondent No.6 for allocation to the respective States. Admittedly, his name has been considerbd as a Government servant. At this stage, the respondents cannot take a stand that petitioner is only an employee of respondent No.6 and therefore retirement benefits have to be settled by respondent No.6 atone. This stand of respondents is not sustainable. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to S are directed to treat ov I enca shment of leave, Den ion etc N h n r n e s a fro the date of receiot of coov of the order." 7. The relevant ortion of the imo uoned ci Memo No.S 242-A/32glAt u lar t HRM-VII/ 20r,7. dated r 22 o 7.2017i extra d hereunder: 7 thls context, . - ul] .,5. in ^ -., ,th = d e pa rt m'e n :s / o istri ct to I I e": :1. i::' ;:: :T,", f. i' ?i Govern me'tt' hiY" lt^t^'En/l oii- r"prft menr clated G.O.Ms.Nc 24, Financ-e rcr";' ;J;;rorptic,n of 09.01.200:l for redePl( surolus wrlrk-charged e'siaOtisnment and surpltts vacancies of other staffindift.erent.at"go,.iliofpostsinGovernment DeDartmerlts into "*''tinq deoartmerrts and also in" i'o*"tt were. delelatod 'for' deployment of su(:h to District Collectors resources in the catego'i"s to*"r than zonal' multi ".;t' siate cadre posts' These :-:d.-,":: "t" ,:-.".i to absorptio'r of obviously 'lot upp"tu6f " l; Public sector Undertat<tnq1s' :"r;a*1, Societies, or other orga n izatio ns/ bodies under Governmt:rt a"putt'Zntt' Declaring ' the emolovees of np state Co-operative i"i9:l::: as surplus and redeplovtns :;Io;;;;,, ;h";- i.,i"y"Try* d,:R:y:Ti..::"'i l".l;t3 orders i:;sued in G'u ilJ*',*,,.i--out"o'os'oi'2002 . is ig::::l^'n" anO the provisions; of orders is:;ued ln tnt 'uia-C'o' i.ii-"i is,o and also Act 14 of t997 and hetrce null and /oid abinitio' -il,.nlt"d ' 6 'fherefore, such orders' if any' issued by the Ol partmintsloiitt'tt Collectorc allotting lrirrrr' !*proyees riom AP state Co-op'erative Irrioatiorl Corporatlon- li*it"A or similar pu blic :".i;; " ' ,nJ"'tutting'' societies' or other orqanizations I ooJies etc'' to. Gov€rnrTlent contravention of de-partn'e'rts woutO L G.O.Ms No.24, ,'nun* (SMPC) - Dep'3rtnlent dated:0'l.01 2OOZ as-wlf f as Act 2 of 1994 and Act il';;i';r, and hence null and void ab initio-' 7 Hence ari'ifre Departments ;rnd the District (:ollectors concerned are instru-cted to cancelsuchorders-iianyissued.and-r€:p-atriate such l)ersons to. their parent organiza:ions immedrately, oesrdes initiating, disciplinary ;[::: :, #' 31"^',.:i ;i^ i.JT';iT 3, o"':i::''., l: terms ol' sectlon o 8 \ recover the loss occurred to the Government due to such illegal appointments, after duly fixing the responsibility for such illegal orders.

8. It is also clarified that such persons of public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations / bodies etc., who were absorbed into Government Departments in violation of the orders issued G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMpC) Department dated:09.01.2002 and the provisions of Act 2 of 7994 and also Act 14 of 1997 are not eligible for any benefits such as pension, gratuity. commutation of pension and compassionate appointments etc., on par with the Government employees in Government Departments. Such employees are eligible only for the benefits which are available in tlLeir parent organizations and such benefits have to be paid by their parent organizations only.

9. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the Director of .Works Accounts and the pay and Accounts Officer, Hyderabad shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the responsible officers/staff for admitting the bills in violation of the Section-s of Act 2 of 1994.,, 8. The relevant oortio nofth lmDuo ed Circular Me o o.LZOGl 476tA ,/HRM- vttt20L7, d ted 1 L7i d r "4. All the Heads of Departments/District to return the service Collectors are directed registers/LPcs of the surplus staff of Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations / bodies etc., who were allotted to Government departments in contravention of G.O.Ms. No.24. Finance (SMpC) Department dated 09.01.2002 as well as Act 2 of 9 1994 an(J Act 14 of 1997, to their parent Corporati,:)ns or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations/bodies etc., so as to enable them to claim their emoluments.

5. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the Direcl:or of Works Accounts and the Pay ard Accounts Officer, Hyderabad are 'directed not to honour the pay bills of the surplus employees of Corporati,:)ns or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations / bodies etc., who were deployed/allotted to Government departments in contravention of G.O.Ms. l^,1o.24, Finance (:;MPC) Department dated 09.01.2002 as well as Ai:t 2 of 1994 and Act 14 of 1997." 9 Tha ra v nt ortio r r hN ts) , zrf +tra iud oment of 132 in "Devi MultiDlex and another Vs. State of in 2O15 9 x Court Guiarat and Others". is extracted hereu nder: "2;2. We find nothing in the present case f,n the basis ot which there could possibly be room to say that it would be inequitable to hold the State Governm{:rnt to its promise. Out of 108 TRCs issued urder the Scheme, the burden that the Governmr::nt was well aware and thought that it could corrrfortably bear, only 19 or 20 units have been established and are functional. In any casre, the impa.t oF incentives so offered und€'r Scheme and the consequential burden must have been weir;hed carefully when such promist: was made an'i the Scheme was formed. We may respectfu y refer to the following observations of this Court in S.V.A. Steel Re-Rolling Mills Ltd. v. State of l,ierala [(2014) 4 SCC 186] to which ore of us (Anil R. Dave, J.) was a party: (SCC p. 194, para 30) t Dolicv s bi D s a r s r r n c VI n h o o e s n nf tr s te notto act as er ts I ND r o I U u n d h r t t

10. This Court takes note of the fact as borne on record that for an identical prayer as in the present Writ Petition on an ""ili.. occasion W.p.No.277l9 of 2O21 had been fildd by one T.Jogal Reddy and this Court disposed of the said Writ petition vide its order, dated O4.06.2024 directing the respondent Nos.l to 5 thereunder to treat the petitioner thereunder as a Government Servant i.e., the employee of respondent No.3 thereunder i.e., the District Coflector, Rangareddy District and settte the retirement benefits of the petitioner thsrg under such as Gratuity, encashment of leave, pension etc., in accordance with rules, expeditiousry, preferabry within a period of four h t1, (O4) months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order, dated 04.06.2024.

11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the present Writ Petition could be disposed of in similar !ines as per order, dated 04.06.2C24 passed in WrP.No.277L9 ol 2O21 (referred to and extracted above). It is how CV r oertin ent to brino on ecord, ara L2. No.3 of the reolv affidavit fi ed bv the oetitione rs and the ame rs extracted hereund er: - " I subrnit that subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, we have acquired information with regard to pensionary benefits being granted to simil'arly placed persons through Right to Information Act, 2005 and also inftrrmation with regard to surplus enlployees of erstwhilr: APSRIC being absorbed in various governrnent departments on permanent, basis. I submit lhat we are now filing the said documents as Additiorral Material Papers in the Writ F'etition. Therefore, we are filing this petition to receive the followinq as Additional Material papers. Sl.No. Description of the Document 1 :opy of the Letter No.B/ASP/V cl,ass/2020, dated 1,2

09.09.2020 2 3 4 Copy of th 24.09.202 Copy of th 24.09.202 Copy of th 2t dated 05.10.2020 e Letter No.A2IRTI/13 4/2020, dated 0 e Letter No.C2/RTI/ 462/ 2020, dated 0 e Letter No. 1 2 1 0/MD/ROC/ Admn/ 2020- 13, A bare perusat of the above referred material documents filed by the petitioners in support of petitioners reply affidavit clearly indicates the fact as borne on record thAt pensionary benefits admittedly had been granted to similarly placed persons tike the petitioners. Hence, this Court opines that petitioners herein are also entitled for grant of similar benefit as per law. L4. Taking into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the tearned counsel appedring on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 13 c) The contents of the impugned Circular Memo No.8242'A/32g / AIIHP(M-Vtl/2OL7' 22.07.2Ot7 (referred to and extracted above) d) The contents of the impugned Circul'ar Memo No.t2O6 / 476/ A1 / HRM- YrI- /.2017, dated lil',to',zol7 (referred to and extracted above) e) The observations of the Apex Court and Other Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:- i) 2O23t (1) ALD 387 (TS) ii) The order of this Court, dated 04.05.2024 passed in W.P.No.277 iii) 201.s (9) SCC 132 19 of 2O21. f) The specific averments made at para No'3 of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners (referred to and extracted above) and the contents of the material documents filed along with the reply affidavit i'e" letters, dated 09.Og.2O2O, 24'Og'2O2O' cls'1O'2020 and 24.Og.202O (referred to and extracted above)' The respondent Nos'1 to 3 are directed to consider tlfie representations of the petitioners 1,4 addressed to the respondent authorities pertaining to the request of the petitioners for issuance of appropriate orders for payment of retirement benefits namely pension, gratuity , arrears of pRC, Group Insurance claims and DA arrears from January, 201-7 along with interest for the period of the work done by petitioners in the office of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice, by. providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2015 (9) SCC 132 in ..Devi Multiplex and another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others" and also the judgments of this Court (referred to and extracted above) without reference the impugned Circular Memo No.g242- A/329 / AL/HRM-VII,/2O17, dated 22.07.2OL7 and the impugned Circutar Merno NI.L2O6/476/AL/HRM- Vll/2OL7, dated 13.1O.2OL7, within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and duly communicate the decision to the ) 15 petitioners on petitioners' representations addressed to the 2nd resPondent herein'

15. Accorctingly, the Writ Petition is disposed However, there shall be no order as to costs' of. Asa sr:quel, the miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending in the: Writ Petition shall also stand closeci' //TRUE coPY// To, /. A.V.S.PRASAD UTY REGISTRAR st)(iD \ .l,se"rto* oFFtcER :;?g1i1' *;:l+.'-[:*;* w T:'[ Ji*ii 1 ffi iilYs':r'.f!'ff :iil?*{r,;s:i?g',v,iifrfj':3s,,,, 9,i[:5$lt"jrr_;!p4;Etti'1il:,,:,tusr"ff ii]:rsitx!*x.81','1 cnrnoration -imited, 5 6ir["ni, Hva"rabad-50o004 er, Ranga Reddy Districr 8. The District E mPloYmer 6 iii; ;l;t;i;i r,,i,r"i.1[ffl;i*u:mrBr;,3i", " -[ reasury u 1 0. The District l l.The District l reasuwiiii"i' tt't'n"aoubnagar District i i ffi t#:' qu Wrnw+s*trgr'ru:ry# : :::," ", .,, +*:t8*i;U-rtPgfl,SgHrYJls-lr, Hish court ror the s;tate or reransana at .,, +I1"3t3il:?uo'lo*. LABouR & EMPL.YMENT' Hish 'lourt ror the state or ,,, +fl:ta:*1,;#EBR*[?EIL', n,nn court ror the state or reransana at Hvderabad lOLlTl ZO. two CD Copies BSR PSK HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 CG TODAY 't c. c A'1" o d 1 * \t}\ l\il! :r-\ t DESPi -;-- ':,r2: ORDER WP.No.12275 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION' WITHOUT COSTS I