K Geetanjali v. The State of Telangana

Heard Sri Ch. Jagannatha Rao, learned counset counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Th tion ra r ach d e s pra Ver as under: "...to issue a Writ, Order or Orders more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, to regularize the service of the petitioner with retrospective effect from 25_11_1993 by extending the benefit of judgement of the Hon,ble Apex Court reported in the case of B.Srinivasulu Vs Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, Ap i.e., Civil Appeal No.6318/2015 dated 17-8-20t5 and judgment dated 21_5_2018 in WP.No.33936/2011 & batch and consequenUy direct the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, and set aside the impugned Proc.No. 146/rA/Admn/2021 dated L6_Og-2OZl issued by the 3'd respondent, by holding the action of respondents in rejecting petitioners genuine claim for retrospective ) sN,l W.P.No. 2 t:,".Tt of 2022 regularization is illegal, arbitrary discrimina. ry and violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of lrdia and pass such other order or orders in the interest of;lstice'" 3 The case of the I,eti tion er, ln brie f,:s ert he made in he affi davit filed bv th, in su ooort of the Dres nt Writ Petittonlsasl l rder: t eti ioner The petitioner was appointed on daily !^ ' ge basis in i) .lune 19BB at the Telugu Academy, Karimnagar As per G O' MS.No.212dated22.04.1994,thepetitionert,ttameeligible for regularization from 25'11.1993 on completiorr of frve years of service, but petitioner's services were regul;' ized only on 2g.O3.lgg7 in the post of Attender' P I itioner was subsequently promoted as Junior Assista - ' in 2000' Publication Assistant in 2005 and Research Assi!'' ant in 2013' ii) The petitioner submitted several represe - ations to the respondents seeking retrospective regular zation from 25.11.1993 for pensionary benefits' But the rr' pondents had not considered the said re prese ntation s ' On e; rlier occasion' the petitioner filed W.P'No' 15886 of '' O21 seeking i pension and retrospective regularization for the purpose ' 4 J sN.l W.P.No.2O171 of 2022 other benefits and this Court was pleased to pass the order dated 15.07 .2027 dtrecting the respondents to consider petitioner's representation, but the 3.d respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on 16.0g.2021 vide proceedings No.146lTAlAd mn/2021 by relying on an inapplicable Government Memo. iii) The petitioner retired on 30.06.2020 and his pension was fixed without reckoning service from 1993, resulting in lesser benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4 PERUSE DTHER ECOR D: A v d Th r ev t or IO n d o.1 46 A d n o d a 6 9 o21 a edb r s Dir Telu u ca em n n N -T e Hi s tr c h e der: - "Hence the Judgment referred in the Order passed by the learned High Court is not applicable in the present case, where as the petitioner after iailed to get ieile? in tne Ap Administrarive Tribunat tne maitei-,iir'iili'n,utury carried to the Apex Court and Hon,ble apex-Court wnife all^owing the Appeat fited uv rnu- upp'uirurl"iuou u reference so that effect, that ni, ,".uilJr- Uu* r"grtu.i."a .+ SN,J W.P.No..l 1^7L of 2022 from 1994 onwards as he fulfilled the conditions ; lpulated as per G.O.[4s. No.212. In the present case, that immediately t came to know about your entitlement as per G'O'Ms'No' - I2' your liuirn or regularization through proper chanrr ls were i"i*ura"a aid ultimatety youi services were r I ;ularized w.e.f.1997. Having accepted the Order of reg - arization *.".f.-fSgZ on*uid, without any protest' YoL admitted in" o.J"r of regularization Hence you are sto ) )ed from making thls claim ^aflc The Government in the Finance Departm r lt ( Memo No.573) has been categorically and clearly sp( ( rfiecj that tr',r"1#aitiont for regulirizatton of services ot ' lily tvagc ..pioy"".luUR empioyees have been prescril' d by the Couurnrn"nt including issue of orders of regull' zat on of ,"rui."., in such cases, otrly form the date 9l order making with prospective' Hence counting ' l servlces ior. p"ntion ind any other purposes rendered ;' ior :o the date of regularization cannot be entert I ned "ff"atiu" In view of above reasons and a ' per the instructions issued in the Government ! emo No' iii,lzfitastpc.Ill/97, Finance and Plannins t" partment' dated 01.09.1997, your representation (li I .not be considered and in result your representati(r here by rejected. " it' : ?f t1-c.1

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of :he petitioner SUbmitsthatthesubjectissueissquarelycover,]jbytheorder of this Court dated 21.10'2020 passed in W P No 16228 of 2020, the order dated 18'10'2021 passed in W )' No' 3236 of 2019, and the Division Bench judgment of ttr ; Court dated 02.05.2018 passed in W'P' No' 33936 of 2011 r rd batch' ..Ecffi*t t 5 sNrJ W.P.No.2O171 of 2O22

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 issued by respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside, as the request of the petitioner for retrospective regularization of services for the purpose of pension and other benefits was rejected maanly on three unreasonable grounds. Firstly, it was held that the petitioner, having accepted the order of regularization with effect from 1997 onwards without any protest, is estopped from making the present claim. Secondly, it was stated that the representation of the petitioner cannot be considered in view of the instructions issued in Government Memo No.573/225/A3/pC.ttt/97, Finance and planning Department, dated 01.09.1997. Thirdly, it was observed that the services rendered by the petitioner prior to the effective date of regularization cannot be counted for pension or any other purposes. 7, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said reasons are contrary to the view taken by this Court in the judgment dated 2t.tO.2O2O passed in W.P. No. 76228 of 2020, the order dated 18.10.2021 passed in W.P. No. 3236 of 2019, and the Division Bench judgment of 6 sN.l W.P.N(,. t-Ol7 L of 2022 this Court dated 02.05.2018 passed in W.P. l\ '. 33936 of 2011 and batch, and therefore the petitioner is c r tltled to the relief prayed for in the present Writ Petition.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader I lpearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute tf ( submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. DISC SSION AND CONCLUSION:

9. The udq ment of the Apex Court reDc I ted in 2O15 scc online SC 1797 between B. Srinivalusu , rn oth r Nellore Municipal Corooration Re Nellore Distri pa rticular DarasTandSreads as u nd er: Andhra Pradesh and other s, o.bv its C, Ttmrssion er, l to the issuance of the We find i difficult to acceDt the reaso'Dg aTopte1 by Hiqh Court. The riqht of the _opp( , ants to seek pi ted 22L!-1994. "(7) reoularization flows from the G.O. No.2 27 The aopellant have een tn sen/l ondent s O. but even onlv orior . till today. he respondent su se ue Municipality being a statutory body is oblic, d by the G'O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above ment ( 1ed G.o. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants . r d continued to extract work from the appellants. of the firs' h

8. In the circumstances, refusing the ber, fit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground thal lhe appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our cpinion, ts not q 7 SN,J W.P.No.20171 of 2022 iustified. In the circumstances, the appeat is altowed modifying the order under appear tv iiiitinq- that the appellants' services be reqularised *ii "i"ii'iri_ the date gf t,he,ir compteting their ive y*, ,oitinl)o-r-r' ,"iuj|ru u, *u, laid down by this Court in District Cottectiiia'i)person & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (B) SCC qAb.; -

10. d t h r

02. 5 VA 1 rti n t e s .P No der of thi 9 5 t2 1 d b tch is extract d hereu nd r: "As already pointed out, when no regular exercise was ever undertaken in any Departmentio ars"s, tne vacancy position so as to immedrately extend benefit to th_ose covered by G.O.tys.No.212, it L not opi'n' to the State to now come forward and say tnai-tne.e were no vacancies as on.the date that the employees -question completed flive years in service, on or before 25.11.1993. A mere assertion in this regard is nothing short of an unsupported selr-serving irr'. O]*,, on the part of the Stare and its rnstrument-afiililna cannot be accepted at face value. Further, tf,"-fu.t. in some of the cases on hand clearty demonstiut"-ii a t despite clear vacancies being "r"if"Jf"-, "" 1ir"fV steps were taken. Further, *hen ,r.tl' were retained in service for decades togetnlr,'ine "aptov"L, necessity to continue them as per the workload is manifest and clearlv dr rr.tn"'-",ii"..".']i'J,.n""Jii,iiii.t;"t;^li:',ff i,,l: and its instrumentalities are responsible for the situation where it cannot be assessed nt* ur'to whether Condition No.5 in c.o.Vs.ruo.iiz siooo -in fulfilled as on the date of completion of nuu yu".r service by the employees concerned, the benefit of doubt would invariably have to be given to the iaio employees and not to the State. i[ i, p".f,"p, iii, very aspect that weighed with the Supreme Court in B-SRINMSULUT, a"s no mention was made therein --N".i ';" of strict compliance with Condifion - 8 sN,l W.P.Nc . ot7 L of 2022 G.O.Ms.No.212, despite the said issue being ) ought up by the Nellore Municipal Corporation. The question oFthe State Exchequer being 'rddled with additional expenditure in relation t ) such regularization does not arise, as the relier ,lready granted to some of the employees in the c ] es on hand is to reckon their services upon compl , ion of five years on or before 25.11.1993 only l)r the purpose of their pension and pensionary lr nefits. They are not to be given any monetary beneti n the form of aTrears of pay or otherlvise. Simill relief would have to be extended to those ernploy: rs who were non-suited by the Tribunal and are be r re this Court. As all of them served the State or Its instru menta lities for decades together, exte I iing to them the benefit of such service only for the I urpose of pension and pensionary benefits can hardl\ )e said to be an onerous burden either on the Stat. or the State Exchequer. Having utilized their ser/ ces all along, the State and its instru mentalities car I ot now turn their back on the loyal services 1s66 r red by these employees. The learned Government Pleader would a I o point out that some of the O.A.s/writ petitions v r re filed with substantial delay after the regularizatic t orders were passed, giving the benefit of G'O.Ms No'212 with effect from the stipulated dates therein prospectively. She would assert that suc r settled matters should not be unsettled merely bec i use the Supreme Court passed the subsequent ( rder in B.SRINMSULUI. It may however be noti ed that the trajectory of developments since the is:, ance of G.O.Ms.No.212, as set out hert: rbefore, demonstrates that there was no consistenc./ e ven in the orders passed by the Tribunal and ti i , Court Identically situated people were treated d l erently. The narration supra in relation to this ver! )atch of cases demonstrates that the Tribunal gave t 1 I benefit of B.SRINIVASULUI to some and denied it i, others. in such a fluid and uncertain situation, an t rployee cannot be blamed for seeking relief even af er lapse of some years as there was no clarity as tc he legal position. As the Supreme Court has now s: tled the ,i 9 SN,J W,P.No,20171 of 2022 same by way oF its decision in B.SRINIVASULUI employees who completed five years of service on ol before 25.11.1993 and were already regulansed in service with prospective effect cannot be found fault with for approaching this Court with some delay so as to seek the benefit of their past service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 at least for the limited purpose oF their pension and pensionary benefits. On the above analysis, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B.SRINMSULUl to the employees in this batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purposes of their pension and pensionary benefits. They shall however not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said perlod, in the form of arrears of pay or allowances."

11. The relevant portion of the order of this Court dated L8.LO.2O2l oassed in w.P.No.3235 of 2O19, is extracted hereunder: "As the issued was already settled in the aforesaid decisions, the writ petition is allowed by holding that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of service from the date of completion of five years in service on or before 25.11.1993 as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, for the purposes of their pension and pensionary benefits only in terms of judgment of this Court dated 02.05.2018." L2. The relevant oortion of the order of this Court, dated 21.1O.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.16228 of 2O2O is extracted ereu nder: - 10 sN'l W.P.No.i )l7l of 2022 This Court, having regarcl to the rival submi';ions made by the parties, is of the considered view tt at the writ petition can be disposed of directing the p t titioners to submit a representation to the respond(r ts seeking regularization of their services and on such reIresentation being made, the resporr lents shall consider the same strictly in terms of G (" Ms'No 212, dated 22.04.1994 and also by duly 161a1nn rto account the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supr( ffie Court in a.Siini;asulu's case (supra) and pass apprc'1 riate orders in accordance with law, within a period of : ree months from the date of receipt of copy of this or: :r' With the above observations, the writ petition is di::' osed of No costs.

13. This Court opines that the three spe<:r tic grounds indicated in the order impugned dated 16'09'2021 passed by the respondent No.3 herein lr rve already been dealt with by the Division Bench of t lis Court in its order dated O2.O5.2O18 passed in W'P' {o'33936 of 2011 and batch and had been held as ur tenable and rejected and therefore' the said three reas;tns raised in the present case are declared as untenakrl : and hence rejected. b e L4. ate DOri rrv emplovee and (b) of Rule 3of e Rul shall furt er sa isfv the con itions st l rlated under n ir Clau s (a) 1l SN,J W.P-No.20171 of 2022 t o Rul e 14 of the Rule for coun ln s r !s tem DO arv servt ce for oensionarv benefits. Rules 13 and 14 of th e Andhra Prad esh Rev ised P 8O dea s with th e U es_ 9 onR d uali fw no servtce o ate e sl f mDo f a em o ovee for th e DU TDO of Davment of oension which reads as nder: - "73. Com encem ent of oualifvinq service: 'ect servtce of a Govern ent servant all commen the r ost ow ua li I e is fir. E h ha e u caDacitv: temoora 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 pensionable post prior to the 17h 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 not covered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen (18) years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity.

14. Conditions subiect to which service oualifies: ( 1) The setyice of a Government servant sha not qualify unless his duties and pay are 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 senrice in a non-pensionabte estabtishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government." t2 sN,l w.P.No ; JLTI of 2022

15. The above Rules clearly indicates that l:l re request the 3'd of the petitioner needs to be reconsidered 'y respondent herein.

16. Thi s Court oo r ne5 hat the oleaD t-f q rth bv the rr qs oft he e n t Director Tel uou 16.09 .202L that coun ino of Acad emv, n o Him avatna lr, servl sofane r rolovee for r er nor to the I te fre tlz ton 11 :e ained rs al wit b c ! ne law laid down on the subiect ts ue, hence, this Cour! oDines that h ect issu s n e ion bv the 3'd respondent herein. L7. T n n a) The aforesaid facts and circumsl lnces of the case, b) The submissions made by the lea'ned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner rnd learned SN,J W.P.No.20171 of 2022 Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The impugned order vide proceedings No.L46/TA/Admn/2O21, dated L6.O9.2O2L passed by the respondent No.3-The Director, Telugu Academy, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad (referred to and extracted above) d) The observations of the Apex Court and other Courts in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: 1) "B.Srinivalusu and others v Nellore Municipal Corporation Rep.by its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others" reported in 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 2) The order of this Court dated O2.O5.2O18 passed in W.P.No.33936 of 2O11 and batch 3) The order of this Court dated 18.10.2021 passed in W.P.No.3236 ot 2OL9 l4 SN,J W,P.No. OLT l of 2022 4) The order of this Court, dated I 1.10.2020 passed in W.P.No.1622A of 2O2O. 5) Rule 13 and 14 of the Andhra Prad'e;h Revised Pension Rules, 198O. The writ petation is allowed. The impr 1 rned order vide oroceedinos No.L46/TA/Admn/20: t

16.o9.202 1 DA ssed bv the resDondent No.3-The Director. Teluou Academv, Himavatnaqar. ll ,derabad is set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to rel onsider the e est of the etitioner etitioner's servi WI h , ization of .1.1993, in liqht of the iudqment of the Aoex Court _'eported in 2015 SCC Online SC t797 in "8. Srinivasul u and others v. Nellore Municipal Corooration, reores.l rted bv its Commissioner. Nellore District, Andhra lr'adesh and others". Civil Aooeal No. 6318 of :r- )15, dated

17.O8.2O15 and the ivision Bench order t f this Court dated 02.O5.2018 oassed in W.P. No. 331 36 of 2011 and batch and oass oorooriate orders wi t rin a period of four (4) weeks from the da of recei Dl, of a coov of l5 SN,J W,P.No.2O171 of 2O22 this order, strictlv in a n conformitv with the DrinciDles of natural iustice and communr cate the decision to the oetitioner. rdance to Iaw and Howev r, there shall be no order a s to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, ,i[ any, ppndinB in this Writ Petition, sha ll stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To Secretariai, State of Telangana at Hyderabad ' Secretariai, State of Telangana at Hyderabad' . .

1. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department' Telangana z. ine principal Secretary, Ffrance and Planning Department' Telangana -' e. ihJ Dli""ti;r, ietugu Acadimv, Himayatnagar, flYderabad' i. ii"-" cc. i" bcFSR SrnVrdrs_r, High court for the state of Telangana at 5 o;,;-cCi;snt cn.lncnruuATHA RAo, Advocate [oPUCl 6. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad. IOUTI SA U. HeSi4 1a 6 o- C) L) l0 JAN 2026 -l;' -- {)c" ,- . -. - HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 210812025 ORDER WP.No.20171 of 2022 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. l" ')q \