V- Hanumanth, S/o v. Narayana, Aged

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 pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing Circular Memo No 8242 A/329/A1/HRM Vlll2017, dl 22 07 2017 and Circular Memo No '1206 /476/41IHRM Vlll2017 , dt 1 3 1 0 2O17 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the salaries to the petitioners from the Month of December, 2017 to till date though they are discharging their services at their respective offices as illegal, improper unjust, and contrary to law and further direct the Respondents to release salaries to the petitioners from the Month of December, 2017 and to continue the same with all consequential benefits. Prayer is amended as per C.O dt1911112020 in lA 1/2019. lA NO: 1 OF 20'18 Petition uncler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent to release salaries to the petitioner from the Month of December, 2017 lty continuing the same pending disposal of rvrit petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners for amendment of cause title in respect of work place of the petitioner Nos. 2' and 22 as Sanga Reddy District instead of Mahabub Nagar District and in respect of Petitioner Nos.23, 24 and 25 as t\.,'lahabub Nagar District instead of Nalgonrla District respectively in the writ petition ar d l.A. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under 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 to receive (1) Copy of the Letter No.B/ASP/V class/2020, d.rted 09/09/2020, (2) Copy of the Lette" No A2lRTl/1 341202O, dated 24logl202o, (il) Copy of the Letter No.C2lRTl/46212Ct2O. dated 2410912020 (4) Copy of the LrNo.121O/tVD/RtC/ Admnl2020-21, dated 05/10/ 2O2O as Additional Materiat Papers. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.RAMAMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2,3,4,9to11: GP FOR FINANCI: PLANNING Counsel for the Respondents No.5 : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION o.L2794 0F 2018 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Ram Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4, 9 to 11 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

2. The oetitioners aooroached this Court seekino the praver as under: "...declaring the action of the 1't respondent in issuing Circular Memo No. 8242-A/329/AIlHRM-VII/2017, dated 22-07 - 2Ol7 and Circular Memo No. t2o6/476/AUtlRM-Vrrl2Ol7 , dated 13- 10- 20t7 ... ."

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners were denied all retirement benefits, including pension, gratuity, and arrears, by the Respondents. Despite being redeployed to the Distrlct Employment Office and 2 working there until retirement, the petitioners were not paid their dues. Though the petitioner:; submitted representations to the Respondents reciuesting the responcents to release the retirement berrefits namely pension, gratuity, arrears of PRC, Group Insur-ance claimed and D.A. arrears from December, 2017, however no action had br:en taken by the respondents c)n the said representations. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. PERUSED T E RECORD:

4. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed on behalf f resoondent No.7 is extracted hereunder: "it is further informed that broug rt to my notice the names of all such employees lvho were ab:;orbed in SMPCs have been removed from the rolls of the Corporation. The E.P.F., account of the employees have been closed. Their nanres were also not considered under bifurcation of united A.P.S.C.R.I.C. Ltd., by the Shiele Bhide Coinmittee. Therefore the entire issue hils been submitted to the government through the Lr.No.EllRIC/Admn/ t329/20t9/504, dated 26.04.2019 by the Managing Director and recluested the APC & Principal Secretary to Government to Agriculture & Co,:peration Department to kindly send a suitable reply to the t.'. 3 Finance Department (HRM-VII), Department to pay the retirement beneFits to all the ex-employees of A.P.S.C.R.I.C. Ltd., who are retired from service in SMPCs of various Telangana Districts and continue all the ex-employees of APSCRIC Ltd., Hyderabad who are still working in various SMPCS oF Telangana Districts in including payment of salaries of every month in terms of G.O.Ms. No./24, dated 09.01.2002, as all such staff have joined in SMPCs as per approvals of the competent Authority on permanent absorption basis. After perusal of the proceedings mentioned above from time to time I am of the opinion that since the names of all such employees who were absorbed in SMPC have been removed from the rolls of the corporation. The E.P.F., account oF the employees have been closed and their names were also not considered under bifurcation of united A.P.S.C.R.I.C. Ltd., under IX Schedule Institutions by the Shiela Bhide Committee and all the employees deployed from APSCRIC Ltd., have been allocated employees-[D numbers and new GPF Accounts were opened in the name of each and every employee deployed to SMPC, Ranga Reddy and other District from the Corporation and have been completely detached from the Corporation and further certain ex-employees of the Corporation who were retired while working in SMPC have been paid retirement benefits (earned leave encashment etc) by the employee after deployment to SMPC, the CorDor tion is not liable to settle the retirement benefits to retired emplovees of the district mDlovment excha noe, Ranqa Reddv District who were the district emolovment absorb d exchan oe, Ranoa Redd district on oermanent a bsorotio n basis." 5 The relevan Dortion i.e., oaraqraDh No.17 of the ment of d 1 22 4 W.P.No.14 855 of 2O18 in "K Muthaiah Vs. District Audit Officer, State Audit, K ammam and others", reDorted n 2023 (1) ALD 387 (TS). is extracted hereunder: "17. In a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of lharkhand and others v Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in 2013 (1rl) SCC 210 it was held that pension anc gratuity ar€: not bounty but property within the mr:aning of Article 300-A oF the Constitution of India. Paragraphs 16 and 17 oF the report state €s under: " 16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the Iegal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in ''property". Article 300-A of the ConstitLtion of I.ndia reads as u nder: '300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.-No person :;hall be deprived of his property se ve by authority of law." Once we proceed c n that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment b€rcomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority c f law, tryhich is the constitutional mandate en:;hrined 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 statutory pr)vision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction ca n not be countenanced.

17. It hardly needs to be emplrasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be 5 termed as "law" within the meaning of the aforesaid Article 300-A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so Far as statutory Rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these Rules, the position would have been d ifferent. "" 6 The releva tDo on n of the order of this Court datedi4-062o24 passed in W.P.No.277L9 of 2021 is extracted hereunder: N res ond n "12. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, this Court finds that for all practical purposes, the petitioner was initially appointed in respondent No.6 organization and subsequently been deputed to respondent No.3 in the year 2OL3. The petitioner has been renderinq his services from the vear 2O13 with respondent No.3. Thouqh the oetitioner has qiven the instances of 5 emDlovee of erstwhile APSCRIC, who have been deouted V been paid retirement benefits, there is no denial of the same bv the resoondents in their counter affidavit. Therefore, if the said emolovees have been allowed encashment of leave as oer their entitlement, the oetitioner also is elioible for the same. The resoondents cannot take a different stand in the case of the oetitioner alone while oermittino 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 Couft finds that n n 6 *..I ther respondents are not denying the eliqibility 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 organizaticn i.e., respondent No.6. Admittedly, the responc ent No.6 is I'inancially weak and after the bifurcatir>n 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 illlocation to the respective States. Admittedly, his rrame has been considered as a Government servant. At this stage, the respondents cannot take a stand that petitioner is only an employee of responcent No.6 and therefore retirement benefits hav: to be settled by respondent No.6 alone. This stand of respondents is not sustainable. Therefore, resoo nd ent Nos.1 to 5 are directed to treat titioner ant i,e., vernm n the em lovee of res ndent No.3 a nd settle tss has his retirem e nth UC encashmen t of leave. ension etc in accordance with exoed itiou slv, Dreferabl y within a oeriod of four months from the date of receiot of Dvofthe order." rules, atu i 7 relev n rtio n J h rred Circular Memo No.8242-A/3 29/AL /HRM-VI 2OL7, dated T/

22.07.20 17 is extracted h e reu nder: "5. In this context, e ll departments/District Collectors are inforrned that Government have issued detailed guid alines in G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMPC) Departm€nt dated 09.01.2002 for redeployment and abso-ption of surplus work-charged establishment anc surplus staff in different categories of posts in Government Departments into existing vacancies )f other departments and also the powers were clelegated to District Collectors for deployment of such 7 resources in the categories lower than zonal, multi zonal and state cadre posts. These orders are obviously not applicable to absorption oF employees in Public Sector Undertakings, Societies, or other organ izations/bodies under Government departments. Declaring the employees of AP State Co-operative irrigation Corporation Limited as surplus and redeploying them in Government departments by invoking orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMPC) Depaftment dated:09.01.2002 is against the orders issued in the said G.O. and the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and also Act 14 ot 1997 and hence null and void a bin itio.

6. Therefore, such orders, if any, issued by the depa rtmen is/District Collectors allotting surplus employees from AP State Co-operative Irrigation Corporation Limited or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations / bodies etc., to Government departments would be in contravention of G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMPC) Department dated:09.01.2002 as well as Act 2 of 1994 and Act 74 of 1997, and hence null and void ab initio. 7. Hence all the Departments and the District Collectors concerned are instructed to cancel such orders if any issued and repatriate such persons to their parent organizations immediately, besides initiating disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officials in terms of section 6 of Act 2 of L994 and also recover the loss occurred to the Government due to such illegal appointments, after duly Fixing the responsibility for such illegal orders. B. 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 8 of Act 2 of 1994 and also Act 14 of L99,/ are not eliqible for any benefits such as pension, gratuity, commutation of pension and compassionate appointments etc., on par with the Government employees in Government Department s. Such employees are eligible only for the benefits which are available in their parent organizations and such benefits have to be paid by their parent orqa n izations only.

9. The Director of Treasuries and l\ccounts, the: Director of Works Accounts and the Pay and Acr:ounts Officer, Hyderabad shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the re;ponsible officers/staff for admitting the bills in violation of thel Section-5 of Act 2 of 1994."

8. The relevant Dortion of the imouqrred Circular Memo No.L2O6/476lALlH M-VII/ 207.7, dated

13.10.20 17 is extracted h reunder: "4. All the Heads of Departments/District Co,lectors are directed to return the service registers/LPCS oF the surplus staFf oF Cor:orations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations / bodies etc., w1o were allotted to Government departm€lnts contravention of G.O.Ms. No.24. Financer (SMPC) Department dated 09.01.2002 as well as Act 2 of 1994 and Act 14 of 1997, to thei- parent Corporations or similar public sector und€rrtakings, societies, or other organizations/bodies et:c., so as to enable them to claim their emoluments

5. The Director of Treasuries and /\ccounts, the Director of Works Accounts and the Pay and Accounts Officer, Hyderabad are directed not to honour the pay bills of the surplus emp oyees of Corporations or similar public sector underrtakings, societies, or other organizations / bodies etc., who were deployed/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 1994 and Act 14 of 1997."

9. The relevant Dortion i.e., DaraqraDh No.22 of the iudqment of the Aoex Court reoorted in 2O15 (9) SCC 132 in "Devi Multiolex nd another Vs. State of Guiarat and Others", is extracted hereunder: "22. We find nothing in the present case on the basis of which there could possibly be room to say that it would be inequitable to hold the State Government to its promise. Out of 108 TRCs issued under the Scheme, the burden that the Government was well aware and thought that it could comfortably bear, only 19 or 20 units have been established and are functional. In any case, the impact of incentives so offered under the Scheme and the consequential burden must have been weighed carefully when such promise was made and the Scheme was formed. We may respectfully refer to the following observations of this Court in S.V.A. Steel Re-Rolling Mills Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(2014) 4 SCC 186] to which one of us (Anil R. Dave, J.) was a party: (SCC p. 194, para 30) "3O- Before lavinq down anv oolicv which would oive benefits to its subiects, the State must think about pros and cons of the policv and its capacity to qive the benefits. Without ro era recr factors, the State should not qive anv assurance, not only because that would ern violation of t e ion of all t ere a el but it wo b n L0 unfair and immoral on the Dart of the State nottoacta s oe r its rtro mrse DISCUSSION AN CONCLSUION:-

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 earlier occasion W.P.No.27719 of 2021 had been filed by one T.Jogal Recldy and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide its order, dated 04.06 .2024 directing the respondent Nos.1 to 5 thereunder to treat the petitioner therr:under as a Government Servant i,e., the employee o1' respondent No.3 thereunder i.e., the District Collector, Rangareddy District and settle the retirentent benefits of the petationer there under such its Gratuity, encashment of leave, pension etc., in acc()rdance with rules, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order, dated O4.O6.2024.

11. The learned counse! appearing on behalf of the respondents also does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of 11 the petitioners that the present Writ petition could be disposed of in similar lines as per order, dated 04.06.2024 passed in W.p.No.277Lg ol 2021 (referred to and extracted above). L2. It is however Dertinent to brinq on record, Dara No. 3ofther eolv affidavit filed bv the oetitioners and the sam e is extr cted hereu nd er: - " I submit that subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, we have acquired inFormation with regard to pensionary benefits being granfed to similarly placed persons through Right to Information Act, 2OO5 and also information with regard to surplus employees of erstwhile APSRIC being absorbed in various government departments on permanent basis. I submit that we are now filing the said documents as Additional Material Papers in the Writ petition. Therefore, we are filing this petition to receive the following as Additional Material papers. Sl.No. Description of the Document 1 2 3 4 Copy of the Letter No.B/ASP/V ctass/2020, dated

09.09.2020 Copy of the Letter No.A2lRrI/134/2020, dated 24.09.2020 Copy of the Letter No.C2IRTI/462/2020, dated 24.09.2020 Copy of the Letter No.1210/MD/ROC/Admn/2020- 21, dated 05.10.2020 I I T2

13. A bare perusa! 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 benefit:s admittedly had been granted to similarly placed per!;ons like the petitioners. Hence, this Court opines that petitioners herein are also entitled for grant of similar benefit as per law. t4. Takino i nto consid eration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the tearned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioners ancl the learned counset appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The contents of the impugned Circular Memo No.8242-A/329/ At/HRM-Vtt/2O17,

22.07.2017 (referred to and extracted above) i I l I I I I I l l 13 d) The contents of the impugned Circutar Memo No.L2O6 / 47 6 / AL / HRM-VII / ZOL7, dated tg.LO.2Ot7 (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:- a) 2023 (1) ALD 387 (TS) ii) The order of this Court, dated 04.O6.2024 passed in W.P.No.277L9 of 2O2L. iii) 2o1s (9) scc 132 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 O9.O9.ZO2O, Z4.Og.2O2O, 05.10.2020 and 24.09.2O20 (referred to and extracted above). The respondent Nos.l to 3 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners addressed to the respondents pertaining to the request of the petitioners for issuance of appropriate orders for payment of retirement benefits namely I l

1.4 pensaon, gratuaty , arrears of PRC, Group Insurance claims and DA arrears from December, 2O17 along with interest for the period of the wc,rk done by petitioners in the office of the respondgnt Nos.2 and 3 in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice, by providing an opgtortunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the juclgment reported in 2015 (9) SCC 132 in "Devi Multiplex and another Vs. State of {iujarat and Others" and also the judgments of this Court (referred to and extracted above) without reference impugned Circular Memo No.8242- A/329,1 At/HRM-VII/2O17, dated 22.07.2OL7 and the impugned Circular Memo No.L2O6/4,t 6/A1lHRM- VII/2O17, dated 13.10.2OL7, within a pr:riod of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of th(: copy of the order and duly communicate the decision on petitioners' representations addressed to the respondents to the petitioners herein. _15 -l-t Respondents are further directed to consider the request of the petitioners for release of the salaries of the petitioners from the month of December, 2OL7 to til! date in accordance to law and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the present order.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. Note: That the l.A.No.1 of 2025 filed for addition of the another paragraph at the end of the page No.1 4 of the Order, dated 24-03- 2025 in W.P.No .12794 o'f 2018 as follows : 'Respondenfs are further directed to consider the request of the petitioners for release of the salaries of the petitioners from the month of December, 2017 to till date in accordance to law and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the present order". fhe same is added and amended forthwith, as per the Order, dated 25-06-2025 in l.A.No.'l of 2025. This Amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on 1 0-06-2025. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.PRATHIMA DEPUW REGISTRAR I I SD/.A.PRATHIMA PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER riat Buildings, State of To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Sec Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, State of Telangana, Buildings, Abids, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad 4. The District Collector, lVlahabubnagar District 5. The District Collector, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District lnsurance .*. a.

6. The Distrir:t Employment Officer, Ranga-ReddyDistrict. 7. The Distrir:t Employment Officer, Mahabubnagar District 8. The Distrir:t Employment Officer, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District. 9. The District Treasury Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 10. The District Treasury Officer, [t/ahabubnagar District 1 1 . The Distrir:t Treasury Officer, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District. 12. The Managing Director, Telangana State Coope|ative Rural lrrigation Corporation Limited, 5-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Opposite Public Gardens, Hyderabad - 500004.

13.One CC b SRI K RAIvIAN/OHAN, Advocate. IOPUC] '14.Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING, High Court for the State of

15.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Telangana. [OUT] Hyderaba,C. [OUT]

16. Two CD C)opies BSK i I I t I HIGH COURT SN,J DATED:2410312025 2510612025 CC TODAY J =\.': (-,,, .\\ .\ \ t 1r, q-9 N15 I I AMENDED ORDER WP.No.12794 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 2}1 ' .l^'