K.Muthaiah v. District W.P.No

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumsti.rnces stated in the affidavit f led in ;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the Additional Material Papers in W.P.No.22351 of 2018 nrrmely (i). Neat Copies of extract of service register - K.Suryanarayana, K Venl<atachalam, P Krishna, K Jeri Raj, ii) Neat copies of impugned order vide Cirr::ular No.B242- A/329/A1/HRt\,{-V111',aO17 dated 22-07-2017 (iii) C rr;ular lVlemo No.1206/470lr\1/H R l\l-Vll/2017 dated 13-10-2017 (iv) Neat copies of Rejection of Representation of p etitioner of payment of retirement benefitr; (v) Circular No.20928/264lPSCl2108 dated 18-12-2008 (vi) Synopsis of W.F'.l'Jo.22351/2018 (vii) Covered Judgme nt delivered by Smt.Justice Madhavi Devi in '/r'.P No.27719 of 2021 , in the interest of justice and allow the l.A. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI N.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 : SRI D.RAMA KRISHNA The Court made the following ORDER \.- \^ ..l' '-'t HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION o.2235L OF 2018 ORDER: 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.l to 3 and Sri D.Rama Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 6. e a roached this Court seekin the prayer as under: "...Setting aside Memo No. 8242/ A/320/ A1/HRM/VII/2017 Dated 22-07- 2017 (page no.5, pare no 5 of I.A. No. 3 of 2018) and Circular memo no. t2o6/476/At/HRM/ vtr/2007 lDated 73-t2- 2017, (page 5, para no. 5 of LA. No. 3 of 2018) issued by the Respondent No.1 and also in not considering the petitioners' representation dated 02-04-2078 (I.A. No. 1 of 2018) as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 19,2t and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently issue directions to Respondents No.1 to 3 to issue appropriate orders for payment of gratuity along with I 2 inte[est, and pro-rata pension for the perio,l the petitioners worked in the office of th,,: Resl)ondents No.2 and 3 in the interest cf justice and equity.... "

3. The case of the petitioners, in br:ief, is that the petitio"rers were denied all retirement benefits, including pension, gratuity, and arrears, by the Respondents. Despite bein1l redeployed to the District Employment Off ce and working therre until retirement, the petitioners were rot paid their dues, Though the petitioners submitted represr,tntation dateri 02.04.2018 to the Respondents requestirg the respondent; to release the retirement benefitsi namely pension, gratuity, arrears of PRC, Group Insurance :laimed and D.A. arrears from January, 2017, however nc: action had been taken by the respondents on lhe said repr()sentations. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the prosent writ petition. PERUSED T E RECORD:

4. The r t ortion of the n r it filed on behalf of resoondent No.7 is extracted hereu nde r: "It is further informed that brought tc, 'ny riotice :he names of all such employees who r,vr,:re 3 absorbed in SMPCs have been removed from the rolls of the Corporation. The E.P.F., account of the employees have been closed. Their names were also not considered under bifurcation of united A.P.S.C.R.I.C. Ltd., by the Shieta Bhide Committee. Therefore the entire issue has been submitted to the government through the Lr.No.E1IRIC/Admn/ 7329/2019/504, dated 26.04.2019 by the Managing Director and requested the APC & Principal Secretary to Government to Agriculture & Cooperation Department to kindly send a suitable reply to the 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 a bsorption 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-ID 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 ,rtq 4 the Ccrporation who were retired while workirr. in SMPC have been paid retirement benefits (earned leave encashment etc) by the emplcyee a l'ter the Corooration is deployment to SMPC, liable to settle the retiremen t 'benefi ts to retired emol vees of the distr ict emol ovment excha n o e Ranoa Reddv Distr.ict'who were the district emolo vment absorbed in excha noe. Ranoa Reddv district on oermanent a bsorotio n basis,"

5. The relevant Dortion a.e., a rao ra oh No,1,it of he iudqment of this Court dated L4.LL.2022 DA 2O18 in "K.Muthaiah Vs. District W.P.No.14855 Aud it Off icer. State Audit. hammam and _crthers", reported n 2O23 (1) ALD 387 (TS ). is extra cted hctegn-der: "17. In a judgment of the Apex (lourt n the matter of State of Jharkhand and others; v. Jiterrdra K:umar Srivastava and another reported in 2013 (12) l;CC 210 it was held that pension and gratuity are n()t bounty but property within the meanin3 of Articlo 300-A of the Constitution of lrrdia. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the report state as un'ler: " 16. The fact remains that thr:re is t' n imF,rimatur to the legal principle that the right to -eceive pension is recognized as a right n "prrperty". Article 300-A of the Constitution 'lf India reads as under: "300-A. Persons not to be deprivec lf property save by authority of law.-No person sha ll be deprived of his property save lry authority of law." Once we proceed on th at 5 premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or eten leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.

17. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be 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 different.""

6. The relevant portion of the order of this Court dated O4.06.2024 Dassed in W.P.No.277L9 of 2021 is extracted hereunder: "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 2013. The Detitioner has been renderinq his services from the vear 2O13 with resoondent No.3. Th ouo h the oetitioner ofSe m D lovee of has oiven th e i nsta ,1 I I i I I I 6 LJ po n g ratu ity he res ondents in pe n sio n or erstwhile APSCRIC, who have been deputed to re s Dondent No.3 oroanization and h been oaid retireme t benefits, there is no denial of h r counter affidavit. Therefore. if the said emolovees have been allowed encashment of the petitioner leave as oer their entitlement, also is elio tt e for th e same. Th e r esDo ndents cannot take a different stand in the case of titioner alone whi le permittinq relief to sther similarlv placed oersons. The judgrnr,rnts relied upon by the learned counsel for the petiticner are on the eligibility of a person to rece iv 3 h is superirnnuation. In this case/ this Court finds ,:hat the respondents are not denying the eligibilit\,, of the petitioner to the retirements benefits su,:fr as gratuily, leave encashment and pension but are only saying that the petitioner is eligible for such benefi:s from its parent organrzation .e., resporrdent No.6. Admittedly, the respondent NJo.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 alloca:ion to the respective States. Admittedly, his; namr: ras been r:onsidered as a Government servant. At l.his stage, the respondents cannot take a stand that petitioler is only an employee of respondent No.6 and trerefore retirement benefits have to be settlec by respondent No.6 alone. This stanc of respor dents is not sustainable. Therefr.rre, resDon dent Nos.1 to 5 are di rected to tr at the petitioner as a Government servant i the em lovee of reso ndent No.3 a nd settle his re irement ben fits such as q ratu i!Y-, encashme t of leave. Denslon acco rda nce with from the date of receiot of coDv of t e order." of four m exoed iti ousl within 7

7. The relevant Dortion of the imo u (I ned ci ular Memo No.8242 -A 329/A1 IH RM-VII/ 2017, dated I

22. 07.20L7 is extracted hereu nder: "5. In this context, all departments/District Collectors are informed that Government have issued detailed guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMPC) Department dated 09.01.2002 for redeployment and absorption of surplus work-charged establishment and surplus staFf in diFferent categories of posts in Government Departments into existing vacancies of other departments and also the powers were delegated to District Collectors for deployment of such 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 organizations/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) Department 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 of 1997 and hence null and void a bin itio.

6. Therefore, such orders, if any, issued by the departments/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 14 of 1997, and hence null and void ab initio. 8

7. Hence all the Departments and the Distri(:t Collectors concerned are instructed to cance such orders if any issued and repatriate such persons to their parent organizations immerliately, besides initiating d isc ip lin a ry procet:dings against the concerned officials in terms of section 6 of Act 2 of 199,1 and ,also r(3covor the loss occurred to the Government due to suc h illegal appointments, after dulv fixing the resporrsibility for such illegal orders. B. it is also clarified that such person,; of public sector undertakings, societies, or o:her organizations / bodies etc., who werr: absorbed into C overnment Departments in violation of the orders issued G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SM pC) Depar_ment dated :09.01.2002 and the prov s ons of Act 2 of 1994 and also Act 14 of 1997 are not eligibh: for any benefits such as pension, gratLrity, commJtation oF pension and compassionate aopoir tments etc., on par with the Cjovernnrent employees in Government Departments. Such employees are eligible only for the benefits rrulrich are available in their parent organizations and slch benefi :s have to be paid by their parent orga n izations only.

9. The Director of Treasuries and Accourts, the Director of Works Accounts and the pay and A,:counts Officer, Hyderabad shall init ate discipl nary proceedings against the -esponsible officer;/staff for admitting the bills in ,riolation of the Se:tion-5 of Act 2 of 1994." 8' IXc- releva n ion of Memo _ No.12O6 /476/AL/HRM-V lt/20L7. _. dated 13.1 o.20 7 is extra cted hereu nder: u ne h "4. All the Heads of Departments/District Collectors are directed to return the service 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 L994 and Act t4 of \997, to their parent Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other orga nizations/bod ies etc., so as to enable them to claim their emoluments.

5. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the Director of Works Accounts and the Pay and Accounts Officer, Hyderabad are directed not to honour the pay bitls of the surplus employees of Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, 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 releva nt Dortion i.e.. oaraorao h No.22 of the iudqment of he Aoex Court reoorted in 2015 (9) SCC 132 in "Devi Multiolex and another Vs. State of Guiarat an 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 I 10 Scheme and the consequential burden must ha,,re been weighed carefully when such promise was nrade rrnd the Scheme was formed. We rni,ry rr:spectf u lly refer to the following observations lf this Corrrt in S.V.A. Steel Re-Rolling Mills Ltd. v. State cl Kerala [(2014) 4 SCC 186] to which one of r'ls (lnil R. Dave, J.) was a partyr (SCC p. 191, para 30) d '30. Before lavinq down anv ps.!icv which would oive benefits to its iects, the State must think about cons of the Dolicv and its r s an ca acity to qave the benefits. Without proper aporeciation of all the relevant factors, the State should not qive anv assurance, not only because that would be in violation of the principles of missorv estoppel but it would be unfair and immoral on the part of the te not to act as per its promise." DISCTJSSION AND CONCLSUION:-

10. This Court takes note of the fact as borne on record thal for an identical prayer as in the present Writ Petition on an earlier occasion W.P.No.27;,'19 of 2021 had been filed by one T.Jogal Reddy and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide its r)rder, datedr 04.06.2024 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 Collector, 77 Rangareddy District and settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner there under such as Gratuity, encashment of leave, pension etc., in accordance with rules, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four (O4) months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order, dated O4.O6.2024.

11. The learned counsel appearing on behatf 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 lines as per order, dated

04.06.2024 passed in W.P.No.277tg of 2O21 (referred to and extracted above). L2, rt is however oert inent to brino on record, oara No.3 of the replv affidavit filed bv the oetitio ners and the sam rsextracted he under:- " I submit that subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, we have acquired information with regard to pensionary benefits being granted to similarly placed persons through Right to Information Act, 2005 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 T2 Additional Material Papers in the Writ Pr:tition. Theref ore, we are filing this petition Lo receive the following as Additional Material papers. Sl.No. IOescription of ttre Ooorr t t Copy of the Letter No.B/ASP/V class;/,1020, dated

09.09.2020 2 :3 ,+ Copy of the Letter No.A2IRTI/134/2020, dated 24.09.2020 Copy of the Letter No.C2lRTI/a62/2020, dated 24.09.2020 Copy of the Letter No.1210/lt4D/ROC/Ad nn/2020- 2l dated 05.10.2020

13. A bare perusal of the above referred materia! documents filed by the petitioners in support of petitioners reply affidavit clearly indicates the fitct as borner on record that pensionary benefits admittedly had breen granted to similarly placed persons like the petitioners, Hence, this Court opines that petitioners hereirn are also entitled for grant of similar benr:fit as per law, L4. Takinq into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, i I I l ! I I I I 13 b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The contents of the impugned Circular Memo No.A242-A/329/ At/HF.M-Vtt/ZOt7,

22.07.2OL7 (referred to and extracted above) d) The contents of the impugned Circular Memo No.LZOG / 47 6 / AL / HRM-ytt / 2OL7, dated Lg.tO.2OL7 (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) 2023 (1) ALD 387 (TS) ii) The order of this Court, dated 04.0,6.2O24 passed in W.P.No.277L9 oJ ZO2L. iii) 201s (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., L4 letters, dated O9.09.2O2O, 24,09,2O2Ot 05.10,2020 and 24.O9.2O2O (referred to and extracted above). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to consirler the representation of the petitioner, dated 02,04,2018 addressed to the 2nd respondent pertarining to the request of the petitioner for issuance of appropriate orders for payment of retirement benefits namely pension, gratuity , arrears of PRC, Group Insurance claims and DA arrears from Januarry, 2017 along with interest for the period of the work doner by petitioners in the office ol' the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice, by providing an opportunity of persona! hearing to the petitioners, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2O15 (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,) witfiout reference to the impugned Circular Memo Nc,.8242-A/329/At/HRM-Vtt/20L7, rJated I 1 t i I I I ,. 75

22.07.2OL7 and the impugned Circular Memo No.L2O6 / 476lA1 /HRM-Vtl I 2OL7, dated 1 3. 10 .2017, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner on petitioners' representation, dated O2'O4.2018 addressed to the 2nd respondent herein.

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. //TRUE GOPY// SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To e t ,) Secretariat, State of Telangana at HYderabad '1 . The Principal Secretary, Secretary(Finance' D 2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. - . 5. fn" Oi.tri"t Employment Officer, Ranga Reddy Dist' 4. The Director of Treasurire-s, e; Ffooif se Ll Eiuilding, Bheema Bhavan' Tilak ' Road, Abids, Hyderabad, Telangana 500q01r. . . . -fii.tri"t ir"r.rry Officer, Ranga Reddy District'- S. ih" ;. ih; A";;;"tant Generat, Lakdikapool, Hvderabad' Telansana' i. i'r," rtar.rsing Director, ietangana StataCooierative Rural lrrigation corporation Limited, s-ro-is3, iit Floor, HACA Bhavan, opposite Public Gardens, HYderabad - 500004' B. Two cCs to GP ron rrriiirCe AND PLANNING' High court for the State of e. o;; ic to snt u.lnNnnrjnnx nEooY' Advocate [oPUc] ;b il; cc to snr D.RAMA KRIsHNA, Advocate (oPUc) 11.Two CD CoPies Telangana at HYderabad' [OUT] SA KV HIGH COURT DATED:241O312025 ORDER WP.No.22351 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. I i I t I i I t Ii i $ ; * I I I I I I I I Ii I : I I I I r C.C. TOD AY ---1::-.:. ,,, a'1. l+ \ q 3, ?1 Iiii \\ r- \ '' | , ,;'., -*\--- lr[[t"; + :/' \ ^