Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2019 · The High Court · 2025

and in Review petition ( C ) No. 9 of 2018, dt. 16tO1l2O1B. in Civit Appeat No. 10806 of 2012, in the case of State of Uttarakhand and cthers Vs. Habib Khan and others and the same scc 545 a nd bas ns ",';;;:T;:}ff ::]ffi :,.: ;lJ;i: i :1::l i: w'p' No 8201 0f 2016, dt'17t03r2016, and *re oivisior,Bench orders of the Hon'bteA.p. High Court in Wp No. 142s of 2019, dt. 1sl1(t/2o1g,and the orders #l:JTI::",'[j:Jt No'17700 or 2016, dt.2oto6t2o17,as hishry iresar, and fa r phy and r."i'TI'il:"ljI.r,:"#T: :,:,ij;*j:,y absorption service of pel ca tes o ry ro r t h e p u rp o s" ::":il : ::;:. ilTJ:frff: ]J J: ::.:,:,,,:r""] pension and other benefits and also gratuity as per the orders of the Hon,bleHigh Court of Ailahabad in tnu i Krishna Bembi Vs. A,ppefiate authority dt. zstost2ols,to tne petitionll;::J,:* IANo: 10F 2022 Petition u nder Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couri may be pleased to direct the respo ndents herein to consider the case of the peti tioner, to count the pre-absorpt ton service of the petitioner on temporary capacity for commencement of qualifying service to sanction pension and other benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.1S6, Finance and planning (FW.PEN.1) fepartment, dated 29to4t1983, by considering his representation dt.08to2t2022 SRI CH. GANESH Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3: AGp FOR S.HOOL EOUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: AGp FOR FINANCE AND F,LANNING Counset for the Respondent No.4: SRI RAM GOPAL RAO, SCr The Court made the foltowing: ORDER c J SN, J wP 29005_2022 HON,BLE MRs. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER: Heard Sri. Ch. Ganesh, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and g, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and planning, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, and Sri Ram Gopal Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner aporoached the Court seekinq oraver as under: "...to issue a wit 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 petitioner in the contingent establishment from the date of his initial appointment to till the date of regularization for commencement of qualifying service as per G.O.Ms.No.l_56, Finance and Planning (FW.PEN.1) Department, dated 29.04.1983, for the purpose to sanction of pension based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others in Civil Appeal No.6798 of.20L9 and batch dt : 02.09.2019, and the same was reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 1 & (2019) 190 SCC 516, and in the case of Habib Khan Verses State of Uttarakhand and others in Civil Appeal No.10806 of 2OL7 and batch dt. 23.08.20L7, which was reported in 4 .\ SN, J '*P 29005-2022 (2020) 1 SCC (L&s) 28, (2019) 10 SCC 52i2, and in ieview Petition (C) No.9 of 2018, dt . 16.01.2018, in Civil Appeaf No.10806 of 2OL7, in the case of State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Habib Khan and ,lthers and the same was reported in (2020) l SCC (L&S) 31 (1), (2019) 10 SCC 545 and basing on the Divis;ion Bench judgments of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. 110.8201 of 2016, dt . !7.03.20!6, and the Division Bench orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Hlgh Court in W.P. No. L425 of 2OL9, dt. 15.10.2019 and the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 17700 of 2016, dt . 20.06.2017, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional against the. principles of natural justice, equity and fair play and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the pre-absorption service of petitioner herein in temporary capacity in the contingent category for the purpose of commencement of qualifying service for sanction of pension and other benefits ind also gratuity as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Srrt. Krishna Bembi Vs. Appellate authority dated 25.05.2()15 to the petitioner herein and pass such order or ordr:rs, in the interest of justice".

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as part time villaqe Librarian on 09'03'1981 and subsequently got regularized on 07'03'2002' Later on, the petitioner was retired from services in J lne, 2014 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is specific case of the petitioner that tl^e Respondent Department is not taking any steps to count the temporary service rendered on contract basis by the petitioner from the year 1981 to 2002 in the Respondent Department for the o 5 SN, J wt, 29005 2022 purpose of sanctioning regular pension gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revised pension Rules of 1980 on petitioner's retirement from service with effect from June, .2014. The respondent Department had not taken any action for a decade in spite of petitioner,s repeated requests for the same. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 4. It is represented by tearned counsel appearang on behalf of the petitioner that the subject issue in the present Writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 24.1I..2022 passed in W.p.No.Z343 2019 and hence, the present writ petition could be allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated 24.L1.2022 passed in W.p.No.7343 2019.

5. The learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 2f,.06.2017 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.p.No.t77OO of 2O16 the same was implemented by the concerned respondents vide Lr.No.6047lCRp&REl C_Z/ 20te, dated 6 SN, J V\'P 29005 2022

10.1O.2O18 and also communicated the same to one Sri P. Dasharadham who was the apprlicant in o.A.No.S624 ot 2015 vide letter Rc.No.BLOl41.7(Ji2oL5, dated 08.10.2018. The relevant g-ortion of Division Bench order of this Court dated 20.06.2O17 passed in W.P.No'J77OO of 2O16, is extracted hereunder: "Coming to the case of the 1st respondent herein, he filed O.A.No.5624 of 2015 stating that the respondents therein have not counted his past service a:; Full Time Contingent sweeper aS per Government instructions issued in G.O.Ms. No.156, dated 29.O4.1983. In the counter affidavit filed by him before this Court, he specifically stated that he was initially appointed as sweeper on 3O.O4.1.982 in the Zillah Praja Parishad Secondary School for Girls. Narsampet. Warangal District. Accordiingly, his services were regularized in the Last Grade post of proceedings Office No.B10/2906/2007-28 dated 12.09.2013 0f the chief Executive Officer, ?il!a Parishad. Subordinate vide when similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in O.A. No.4409 of 2006, the same was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 18' 12.2009. a 7 SN, J wP 29005 2022 Subsequently, holding that the facts and circumstances of the case in O.A. No.44O 9 of 2006 are simiiar to the case in o.A.No.5624 of 2015, the learned rribunal allowed the o.A. No.5624 of 2015 holding that the matter is squarely covered to the facts in O.A. No.44O9 of2006, the 1st respondent- applicant is entitled for the relief. In view of above, the 1st respondent_applica nt is fully eligible and entiUed to be converted into rejular post of last grade but that was not done purposefully, wantonly due to the administrative reasons by the respondents therein for that the 1st respondent-applica nt was put to irreparable loss. 1 f n r o oensionary benefits. rdin lv, G. O.Ms. No.15 6. da d29.04.19 43, is fullv aoplicable to the case of 1st respondent herein. Accordingly, we find no illegality. or perversity in the impugned order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Writ petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 01.10.2015 passed in O.A.No.5624 of 2015. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed." 8 SN. J wP 29005-2022 l 6 7 1 Provided that - (a) in the case of a Government servant in a Class IV servici or post *ii i"ru u ti"n ^o' r: :;;'oiig"o nl:':";;":, -pir-un"nt Pensionable Po* Pflo.t. 1s60, seruice ,";;;;;; E;i;; a.ttainins the ase or sixteen (fi) years snatt nit count for any purpose; and t 9 wp-zsoos-lilii (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. (1) The service of a Government servant shall not unless his duties and pay regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. (2) For the purpo.ses of sub-rule @) tne 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 qualifying service by the Government."

8. Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava

14.O8.2O13 it was held that pension and qratuity are 17 of the report states as under:

16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle 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 authority of law." Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in na, # l0 SN. J \\'t,_29005_ 2022 -{ the beginning of this judgT"lt.become:; too obvious' A person cannot b. l;p;"60 o.r this pen:;ion without the authority or ra*l *n].n is lhg constitutional mandate enshrined in nrtiire':oo-n of the constitution. It follows that atte*pt oi'Iil" appetlant to take away a part of pension or gratuitt o'' even leave enc;rshment without any statutory i.J'ition and under the umbrage of administrative iristruction cannot be countenanced' 17. It hardly needs to be emphasized tlrat the executive instructions are not having statutory character and' therefore, cannot be termed as 'ilaw" within the meaning of the'aftresaiO Article 300-A On the basis of such a circular,-*nith is not having force of law' the appeltant .unnot withhold even a par-t of pension or gratuity.Aswenoticedabove,sofara:;statstoryRules areconcerned,thereisnoprovisionforwithholding pension or. grJtrity in the given situ'ation' Had there been any ur.h- ptovision in these Rules' the position would have been different'

9. "6. The pari materia provisio-n contain':d in Rule 3'17(ii) of the Punjab cirii ie-t'ices nutes had been struck down by a Futl Bench i".-on of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand v' State of Punjab' The challenge by the State .;;i;;i the afore-said dt:cision of the Full Bench of the 'prnjio ino Haryana High Court was negatived by init'corit' The mat':er 9am9 up for consideration oeior" tnii Cou.rt' orlc€ again',in Punjab SEB versus rua."uia"Silgh'-Whiie dealing with the said question tnis couit in pJtu 25 of the r':port held that the 4W SN, J wP_29005 2022 Full Bench decision of the punjab and Haryana High 9og! .was perfecUy jusrified in striking down Rule 3.17(ii) of the punjab clvil 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 Regulations applicable 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 not see as to whv the oeriod of service ered on work- nq service" for orant of "oual nsion. The pari materia provisions 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 taking any other view except to hold that the appeilants are entitled to reckon the period of work-charged service for purposes of computation of "qualifyinq s€rvice for orant of oension. We order accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court."

10. The Review Petition (c) No.9 of 2o1g filed before the Apex Court Aggrieved by the orders dated 23.08.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 108O6 of 2Ot7 in Habib Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand was dismissed by the Apex Court vide orders dated 16.01.2019. t2 SN. J wt,._29005_2022 simil ar urnder 20L9, No. 425 of In w.P.

11. circumstances. the Division Bench of the Haqh Court of Andhra Pradesh considered the issue whe:ther the past of the apol icant pror to their reqular ization can be taken into consideration for th,e puroose of oension. The Division Bench in its iudqment dated 15.10.2019 referrino to the iudoments of the Apex Court reported in (2OO1) 1O SCC 473 State of Tamil V' Association at paras 9, 1O and 11 held hereunder: ,,9. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the High court of Judicature at Hyderabad I'or the state of Telangana and the State of Andhra Praclesh in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Raja Rao and also the Karnataka High court in B.H. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. pensionary benefits.

11. It is also to be noted here that the orders passed by the Tribunal in o.A.No.6524 0f 2014 and batch dated L4.t|.2oL4werenotchallengedandtheyhavebecome final. Therefore, once the orders of the 'Iribunal are not challenged and have become final, thr:re is no other option hr the authorities except to implement the same." x at '' O t t3 SN, J wP_29005 2022 L2. The Apex Court in the judoment reoorted in (202O) 1 SCC (L&S) in prem Sinoh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at para 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services'for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work- charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and elven as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reqular establishment and the services rendered bv thertr right from the day they .entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as qualifvino service for ourpose of oe on."

13. A similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the iudgment dated 18.O2.2O22 in petition for Soeciat Leave to Apoeal (C) No. 11O9/2O22 in the State of t4 SN. J wP 29005_2022 observino as follows: As a welfare State, the State as su ch ought not to havt: taken such a stand. In the present case, the High Court has ttot committed any error in directing the State to pily pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed'" t4. The Division Bench of erstwhile AP High court vide its order dated L7.o3.20L6 in w.P.No.8201 0f 2Ot6 very clearly held that the. Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that temporary ser"rice shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under Rules 13 and L4 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. t. o l5 SN, J wP 29005 2022

15. rn a similarly situated case filed by the teachers of Gurukulam this Court i.e., Hon,ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, in its final order dated o5.o2.2o23 passed in w.p.No.l Ltgs of 2o19 at para 16 and 17 observed as under:- "...16. However, in view of the discussion on the first limb that the services of the petitioners have to be taken into account from the date of their initial appointments, it is needless to observe that the petitioners would obviously come under the provisions of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 but, they cannot be subjected to take shelter of the G.O.Ms.No.655 dated 22.09.2004 which was introduced for implementation of Contributory Pension Scheme for the employees recruit on or after 01.09.2004. Admittedly the petitioners are in service from 2002 onwards. The plea of the respondents is that the petitioners were regularized after 01.09.2004 is misconceived.

17. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the Circular Memo No.897lAccts/0L12014-15 dated 19.12.2018 of the respondent Society and the resoondents are hereby t6 SN. J wP_29005 2022 costs...,,

16. This court opines that the specific plea put-forth by the respondents that the petitioner is religible only for counting petitioner's services from the date of his regularization as per G.o.Ms.No.2l2, dated 2z.o4.1.gg4 is untenable and the pleas put-forth at para No.7 of the counter are unreasonable in view of the taw and the observations laid down by the Apex courjt and other courts in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and the petitioner therefore cannot be deprived of his constitutional right for consideration of petitioner's case by the respondents herein lor counting the past service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis from the date of petitioner's initial appointment to the date of petitioner,s regularization for computation of qualifying service for sanction of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner as per law, except by authority o,f law since pension is not a bounty, but property within the t7 SN, J wP_29005_2022 meaning of Article 3OO-A of the Constitution of India. In view of the fact that similarly situated persons obtained the similar relief through orders dated L7,A3.2OLG passed in W.P. No.82O1 ot ,2016, 2().06.2O17 passed in l r.P. No.177OO of 2OL6, 15.10.2019 passed in W.P. No.1425 of 2019 and 06.02.2024 passed in W.P. No.lt735 of 2O19 which had even been implemented in respect of the said petitioners and the said fact had even been admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents herein, this Court opines that the oetitioner herein cannot be discriminated, and the said action of . the resoondents in denving and id relief to the oetitioner delavinq the qrant of the erroneously, is in clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as observed bv the Apex Court in its two Judqments qiven below. A) The Apex Court in its Judgment reported in 2O21 (6) ALD 285 (SC) Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2OO2 of Azam Jahi Mill Wolkers Association Vs National Textile Corporation Ltd and very clearly observed that the right to equality under Article L4 ol the Constitution of India Y-4 l8 SN. J wP 29005 2022 is vested in favour of person, who claims equality and parity, and therefore, it is enforrceable against state instrumentalities in exercise of I 2O2L (6) ALD 285 (SC) 4 power under Article 226' of the Constitution and further when equalrs are treated unequally, there is violation of Article L4' The equality is a definite concept and those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to equal treatment. Paras 9(c) and 9(d) of the said judgment reads as under: ,.g(c)The submission on behalf of the respondents more particularly learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the appellant Associalion 318 ex- employees have no legal right and that rt:spondent Nos.2 and 3 have no legal duty has no substance and cannot be accepted. Right to equality guaranteed un,Jer Article 14 of the constitution of India is vested right in favour of the person who claims equality and parity and the same is enforceable against State / state inst'umentalities in exercise of powers under Article 226 of thr: Constitution of India. we find no iustification at all in treating 318 ex-employees different from those 134. ex-emplovees who were allotted 2oo sq. Yards of plorts free of cost. Wefindthatassuchtheequalsaretreatedunequally and therefore. when the equals are treated unequalty. there is a violation of Arl:icle 14 of the Constitution ancl therefore. the aoPellants were entitled to the re{ief souoht even in exercise of- powers under Articte 226 of the constitution of India. 9(D)Theconceptofequalitybeforethelawandequal protection of the laws emerges from the ftlndamental right {--__ l9 SN, J wP_2900s_2022 expressed in Article 14 of the Constitution. Equality is a definite concept. The concept of equality has an inherent timitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. Equality is amongst equals. classification is therefore to be founded on substantiar differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the groups and such differential a{ributes must bear in just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. In a given case Article 14 of the Constitution may oermit a valid classification. However. a ctassification to be followed must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another must have a reasonable nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. In the present case allotment of 200 Sq.yards free of cost to 134 employees was to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure. As observed hereinabove those 318 ex-employees who are denied the 5 benefit of allotment of 200 sq.yards of plots free of cost are similarly placed persons with that of 134 employees who are allotted 200 sq.yards plots free of cost. There is no rationale justification in providing differential treatment to one class of ex-employees similarly placed with another class of ex-emotoyees who are allotted the plots." B) The Apex Court in its Judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Aravind Kumar Srivastava and Others, dated 17.1O.2O14 in Civil Appeal No.9849 of 2O14 observed as under:. 20 SN, J wP 29005 2022 "(1) Normat rule is that when a oarticutar set of employees is given relief bv the Courtl, att other identically situated persons,need to be tr.eated alike by extendlng that benefit. Not doinq so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the cErstitutiqn of rndia. Thris orinciple needs to be applied in service mal:ters more emohatically.as the service jurisprudence evotved bv this Court from time to time postulilss that ail similarly situated persons should bre treated similarlv. Therefore, the normal rule worr!d be that merely because other similarly situated llersons did not approach the Court earlier. they are not to be treated differently."

17. This Court opines that petitioner cannot be discriminated since it is not disputed even by the respondents herein that the same benefit had already been extended to similarly situated persons like the petitioner, working under other _ departmr:nts of the state Government, but however the same had been denied to the petitioner herein on a very unreasonable ground that the petitioner's service had been regularized w.e.f ., 07.O3,ZOO2 and since the petitioner had not worked as full time contingent and only worked as part time Village Librarian, the said plea put-forth by ,?. 2l *r-roor-til;i the respondents at para No.7 of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent at this length of time after extracting services of the petitioner for more than two decades is not only illegal, arbitrary, but also irrational, untenable and hence, rejected i

18. A bare. perusal of the averments made at para Nos.4 & 5 of the counter affidavit fited by the 4th respondent clearly indicates that petitioner was appointed as .part time village Librarian in the Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha, Mahabubnagar, during the year

09.03.1981 on a consolidated pay of Rs.8O/- per month and subsequently, Government vide G.O.Rt.N o,1^44, Education (SE Lib.2) Department, dated O7.O3.2OO2 accorded permission for regularization of services of the petitioner herein along with four other part time workers from the date of issue of order i.e., with prospective date. This Court opines the fact that petitioner worked since 1981 being undisputed by the respondents, petitioner is entitled for grant of consideration of subject issue by the 1't respondent in accordance to law within a reasonable period, in view of '' i I -..l 2'2 SN, J wP 29005 2022 the observations of the Apex court and the Division Bench of this court and our High court and A.p.High court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above).

19. Takino into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circums;tances of the case, b) The submissions made by the le'rned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for services-r appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The Judqments of the Aoex Cor.rrt and other courts (referred to and extracted above) and aoain enlisted below:- i) 2OL3 (12) SCC 210, dated 14.O8.2O13 ii) (2o19) 10 SCC s42 iii) The Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2O18, dated 16.O1.2018 iv) W.P.No. L42S of 2O19 v) (2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) vii) Judgment dated L9.O2.2O22 in SpL (C) viii) Division Bench order in WP No.82O1 of 2016 ix) W.P.No.11735 ot 2O!9 x) 2021 (6) ALD 28s xi) Civil Appeat No.9g49 of 2Ot4 No.1tOglZO22 23 SN, J wP 29005 2022 d) Rule 13 and t4 of the Ap Revised pension Rules, 1980 (referred to and extracted above) which ctearty indicates that qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he or she takes charge of the post to which he or she is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. . The Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents l are directed to consider the request of the petitioner to count the pre-absorption service of petitioner herein in temporary capacity in the contingent category that is temporary service rendered on contract basis from the date of petitioner's initial appointment i.€., o9.o3.2o19 til! the date of petitioner's regularization vide G.O.Rt.No.144 dated Ot.O3.ZOOZ in Respondent Department and to reckon the said period for computation of qualifying service for sanction of pension gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner as per revised Pension Rules of 1990, in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personat I ) 24 SN, J wP 29005 2022 hearing to the petitioner duly taking into 'consideration the observations in the various Judgments of the Apex Court and other Courts (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders onr the subject issue within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if oflY, pending shall stand closed. sD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / / //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER One fair copy to THE HON'BLE MRS' SUREPALLI NANDA '(for Her Lordship's Kind Perusal) Buildings, HYderabad Secretariat, HYderabad. CompanY Affairs, New Delhi.

1. 11 L.R. CoPies 2.TheUnderSecretary,Unionoflndia'MinistryofLaw'Justiceand 3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High court 4. The Principal Secretary, Education (PE.L1B) Department, Telangana 5. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Telangana O. in" Oit".tor of Public Libraries, Afzalgunj' Hyderabad' 7. The Zifia Grandalaya samstha, Mihabubnagar District. Rep. by its 8. One CCio SRl. CH GANESH Advocate [OPUC] 9. i*o CC. to GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION ,High Court for the State of 't0.one ic to sRl. RAM coi'nl RAo, sc toPugl. ll.TwoCCstoGPFoRF|NANCEANDPLANNING,HighCourtforthe Telangana at HYderabad [OUTI Secretary. ResPondent(s) Secretariat, HYderabad. State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI Two CD CoPies \ To, \ (\ x HIGH COURT DATED i2310612025 ORDER . -i ii'I u- ...:- L.' .. WP.No.29005 of 2022 -i 1",t I'l0t/ I0ffi . ..\ .,;\. l-a't )'. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHIOUT COSTS RA- 1) A