The High Court · 2025

. Heard Sri S. Gopal Rao, tearned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and rearned Assistant covernment Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of respon dents.

2. Th h wrt n followino relief : "... to pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus 9r ."ny other appropriate writ, order or direcUon, by declaring the_proceedings of the 1.t respondent bearing Memo No. 2t6/CE/At/2O23, dt.O3_O7_20i3, rejecring the claim of the petitioner for reckoning the servtes of the petitioner with efFect from 13-11-19g4 when the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Geology (his services were regularized with effect from 12_g_1993) for the purpose of fixation of pensionary benefits as per the tul9 down by Honourable High iourt of Telangana in lg.*^ W.P. No.33936 of 2011 and batch, dt. 02_0i_2018, wherein it is held that even NMR/iemporary iervices prior to the regularization of service shall also be counted for. the purpose of pensionary benefits, ai ittegat, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 74, 76 and 21 of Constitution of India and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to refix the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner by reckoning his service rendered by the petitioner with effect a.orri ro-ir-r984, notionaily a;d c;;;er afl consequential benefits and pay the arrears thereof wjth interest to the petitioner arid to pass..:,,. 2 SN. J \\ I t6ti90 l02l 3. The cas,: c,f the petitioner, in brief, is that the t'etitioner was appoirrterl :s Lecturer in Geology on a part t me basis in Bhavan's NIew !: (lience College (Day), Narayanaguda, H.''derabad vide proceedirc::;, dated 21.72.1981 and was contirtut:d up to March, 19{12. Ihe petitioner applied for the regu ar post of Lecturer in Ge:c'ogy in the same college and was selectt'rd by the Selection Com rrittee by the order dated 13'11'1')84 and approved by ()smania University on 19'11'1984' But the petitioner r,vas; ,: trlpointed in a vacancy admitted in a grarrt-in-aid, therebyentitlelforregularizationofhisservicesintermsof G.O.Ms.No.9t5 dated 29.g.Lg76 and also entitled for pay and respondent lar; issued allowances. Tltereafter, the 1tt proceedinqs :earing G.O.Rt.No.739, dated 07 l0'2004' regularizing th(r services of the petitioner as Lecturel irr Geology in the same col ege with effect from 12.08'1993' 3 (i) It il; further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by thesaiddeci;io'r,onanearlieroccasionthepetitionr:rfiledW'P' No.21442 af 2)04 Eihd it wds'dlsmissed'on 10'09'201i1 and the same was ccni'irmed by Division gencn oi this Court r"ide order dated 02.09 ).022. However, the petitioner is er titled for reckoning of l'is service with effect from 13.11.19i14 when he -7 /, / 3 SN, J wt, 26a90 2023 was initiated appointed as Lecturer though his services were regularized with effect from 12.8.1993. In view of the law laid down by this Court in W.P. No.33936 of 2OLL and batch dated

02.05.2018 the NMR/Temporary service prior to regularization of service shall be counted for the purpose of fixation of pension and pensionary benefits. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.O9.2022 to refix his pension and pensionary benefits by reckoning his service benefits with effect from 13.11.1984. However, the 1't respondent issued impugned proceedings bearing Memo No.216lCElAI/2023, dated

03.07.2023, dated 03.07.2023 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERU SED THE R ECORD. (A) M o.216 I 2023 dated 3.O7.2O23 iss ed bv the Secretarv to Government to the 2nd resoo ndent is extracted here u nder. "GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA HIGHER EDUCATION (CE) DEPARTMENT Memo-No.216lCElA1l2023 Dated 03.07.2023 4 SN, J \\ P 26890 2021 Sub:- Establ shment Higher Education Department -Ofd€rs, dated: L5.17.)-022 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P \o 44923 to 2322.-:lr:quest of Dr.T.P.Srinivasan, Reader in Geology (llet rcc on 31.10.2012), Bhavans New Scierct: College, Narray',: trguda, Hyderabad for reckoning of his :srrrv ces w e'f' 13.11 1984 and to release pension and pensiorrery benefits alonS ,rith interest Not feasible for consideration - lejected - R eg;trt ling. Ref.:-1. Orclt,r's, dated: 21.04.1993 of the Hon'ble Figlr court in V/.P.N,r,17066 of 1991 led by Dr.T.P.Srinivasarr, 2. Prrrccedings. Rc No. 197/PC.ilI-Ug2, dated: 05.()3.1994 of the Cc,mmissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyd:rabad. 3. Or,le-s, dated: 07.11.1996 of the Hon'ble High Ccrurt in W. l). I'Jc. 1232U94, fi led by Dr.T. P.Srlnivasan. 04 ). . 1997. c7.l0 ir004. \,V.P.ltlc .3O757/91 , filed by Dr.T.P.Srinivasan.

4. Go're -rment Memo No. lO645lCE.1L2/91;-t , dated: 5. (lrd3r;. dated: 25.03.2004 of the Hon'ble High (lorrrt in 6. G.l).Rt.No. 739, H.E.(CE.II-2) Departrn'rnl , dated: 7. C)rderr dated: 10.09.2018 of the Hon'ble H gh Court in 8. Ordrrr, dated: 02.09.2O22 of the Hon'ble H 9l- Couft in W.A.Nc,.1371 of 2018 In W.P'No.21442 of 2OO'l f led by the Dr.l ,P.Srinivasan lecturer in Geology. w.P,trt :.21442 0f 2004.

9. Frorr :)-.T.P.Srinivasan, Reader in Geology (Retd., Bhavans New Sicience College Narayanguda Representaticn dated: 2ii 0!) . ,; 022 Hyderabad l.rl. o'ders, dated: 15.12.2022 of the Hon'ble -1ig;h Court in W.P.rJc,,44923 lo 2022, filed by Dr.T.P.Srinivaszn. I 1. ['r-om ilyderabad, 04.()s, )-023 the Commissioner of Collegiato Education. Lr.No.CCE-ADMN/CCl2/2023-ADlvll\, dated: In the -e"erence 1't cited, The Hon'ble High Court ir its Order, dated: 21.r14.1ti9t3 in W.P.No.17066 of 1991 filed by Dr.T P.r;rinivasan, lecturer in Ge,) (,gy while allowing the petition held that: - 7 5 SN, J wP 26890 )023 "It is not disputed that the post of the petitioner is not admitted t0 grant-in Aid. Under this background, I hold that the post of the petitioner is admitted to grant-in aid and that there is sufficient work for the petitioner. In my view there is no justification in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for continuation and regurarization oi his services. The learned Government pleader has brolght to my notice the G.O.Ms.No.3O2, dt:23.08.1991 by which the Government had power to regularize the services of the lecturers who are appointed temporarily. Since the Government issued the said G.O. in 1991. I am of the view that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit accrued in terms of the said G.o. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner is entiued for regularization as lecturer in the third respondent college, since the petitioner is seized to be in services with fed from June, ts92 the onry other question that wourd faI for consideration is whether the respondent could be directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages. At the petitioner is not in service since June lgg2, I consider it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, but without any back wages by regulertzing his services. However the petitioner claim for the seniority is ioncerned, the respondents have to decide the question of seniority taking into account the interest of other claimants if any. It is made dear that the pay of the petitioner shaI be flxed by taking into account the notionar seniority. The orders impugned in this writ petition is set aside the writ petition is accordingly allowed. No cost',. 2. Accordingly, the appointment of Dr.T. p.Srinivasan has been approved w.e.f. from 12.08.1993 as a regular lecturer and the supplementary salary statement has also been approved w.e.f. 12.08.1993. Aggrieved by, Dr.T. p. Srin ivasa n filed W.p.No.1232t of 1994 for fixing of pay from the date of his appointment as part Time Lecturer Le., 13.11.1984, and to release arrears from 12.11.1993. 3. In the reference 3'd cited, the Hon'ble High Court in its orders, dated: 07.11.1996 in W.P.No.12321 directed the 1.t respondent i.e. Govt. Of AP, to consider the petitioner claim for fixing of pay and pass appropriate orders. 4. . Accordingly, Goverriment in the reference 4th cited, has rejected the claim on the following grounds: I. The Hon'ble High Court .in its interim orders dated: 25.08.1992 in W.P.No.153225 of 1992 in W.p.No. t7O66 of 1991 directed to continue on the old terrns on which he was earlier working, pending further orders on W. p. he worked only as Part time Lecturer earlier. 6 SN, J w, 26890 2021 II. He wo-ll,:d as part time Lecturer drawing consolic atr:d pay on remulerat on of RS: 20/- pet period which servicl (:annot be counted e'' r:n for notional fixatlon. IIL That h: 04. 11 . 1!r9,1 i 04.0€,.1!t9 writ preti -ic rr was given notional fixation in terms of lrcer dated: In W.P.No. 14972 of 94 and ordr':rs date. in W.A.No.329l95 subject to the ultimate c;ecision of

5. Dr -I .P.llr rivasan has filed a fresh W.P.No.307t7 of 799-l praying the lc n'ble High Court to set aside the GCvernment Memo. No.1116 451(,E.71.2196-4, dated: 04.11.t997 and f .rrtler direct the responden-s to fix the pay in the scale of RS;3000-500C/- Under CAS laid dowr 1 para-g(b) of appendix to para of G O' lvls No'520, Education De[)a 1ment, Dated: 15'12.1988, with all conr;equential benefits like a rrel: rs etc. In the ref'-'rence 5th cited, the Hon'ble High Court in its Order, 6 dated 25/O3l2lCa in W.P.No.3O757 of 1997 white allowirrql the petition has set aside tie Order in Govt., Memo.No. 10645/C E . 1.7.2/96-4, dated 04.11.1)9,'and directed to regularize the services ir terms of the Judgment, d,r:ed: 21.04.1993 in W'P No. 17066 of 19!'1' Accordirrg )', in the reference 6th cited, orders wt:re issued 7. regularizing ttle services of Dr.T.P.Srinivasan, Lecturer in Geology, Bhavans Ntw S:ience College, Narayanguda, Hyderabarl vrith effect from 12.08.1991i Aggrieved by, the petitioner has agairr f led a W'P No.27442 c.t' 2)(.'4 in the Hon'ble High Court, to quash G.().Rt. No'739, Higher Educa:icrr (CE.11-2) Department, dated: 07.10.'2004 and co;sequently, to direct the respondents to'fix the pay of the petitioner under CAS lairl ,lown in paragraph no.9 (b) of appendix :o paragraph no.4 of G.().FM: No 520, Education Department, dated 15 12 1988 with all conse( u,l.ltial benefits like arrears etc. In the lelerrence 7rh cited, the Hon'ble High Cou:t in its order,

8. dated: 10.09.iI(l i8 in W.P. No.21442 of 2OO4, held that: "Insofar ,, s W.P. filed by the petitioner i'e,, W.P trt<;.ti3OOl of 2001 is ccrtcerned, the prayer thdrein was for issualc',: of writ of certi,lra -i :alllng for the records regarding senlor ty list of lecturers lated: 06.07.2001 issued by the college, fo- quashing the sarn€ and for directing the management 1o place the petition:r lt an appropriate place reckoning his seniority from 13.01.19Ei2t. In the said writ petition, the issue whether the servlce rerdered prior to regularization can be reckotled or not f 7'/ l SN. J wP 26890 2023 for the purpose of seniority was not taken into account. As per the service jurisprudence, there cannot be any ,"niority before regularization of services. At best the services rendered "r"n prior to regularization can be counted for the purpose oF pensionary benefits onry, if at aI the petitioner is entifled to. Yol.9o_r".,-ry1'"n a specific finding was recorded in the judgment in W.P. 77-066 of 1991, dated: 2t.O4.tgg3 that the petrlioner was out of employment from June, 1992 till he was reinstated in pursuance oF the judgment passed in W.p.No.17066 of 1991 in the year 1993 and when there was a gap in the services of the petitioner for a period of more than two years, there cannot be any retrospective regularization with effect from 13.Ll.lg}4. Therefore this court is of the view that the 1.r respondent has rightly regularized the services of the petitioner viOe G.O.Rt. No.739 Higher Education dated: 07-tO-2O04 with effect from 12-08- 1993 In terms of the judgment in W.p.No. 17066 of 1991 dated: 21.04.1993. There are no merits in this writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. petitions pending, if any No Costs Consequently Miscellaneous dismissed".

9. Dr.T.P.Srinivasan has filed a Writ Appeal No ir37i_ of 2Otg against the Orders, dated: 10.09.2018 in V.p. )t.CqZ of ZOOC.

10. In the reference gh. cited, the Hon,ble High Court in its order, dated: 02.09.2022 in the Writ Appeal No. 1371 of-2018 hetd that "It is we setued proposition of raw that regurarizing the services of tempora rylpa rt-time/ad hoc appointed ur" pu-."|y gov-erned Ly the policles of the State Government and the appellanvpetitioner ii not entitled for consideration of his past service for'tf," pr.por" oi regula_rization and granting for any emoluments attached to the said post. It is also well settled law at the Courts, while granting orders for regularization of part time employees, have to keep iri mind the financial implications of the state foi granting monetary benefits to the employees, whose services are going to be iegularized. In fact, in the present the appella rit/peutioner services were regularized not in terms. of any of the policy laid down by the state, ULt it is only.in compliance of the biders passed in W.p.No. TZOOA of 1991, da[eJ: 21.04.:!9?3. Therefore, the petitioner as a matter of right cannot be permitted to insist that his past services as part time recturer shourd the purpose o! sTltlns sunio.[y o. f9,t qhe pq.p;pe-o] 3:,::.1:1"1 1:r r*le of p9y- i.e., Rs.3000-5000/_ under cas"i.ul),6ni'or'-' :]1?^s^,1"- scate on completion of five years I.e., 13.11.19g9 and selection grade -case, , t 8 SN, J \\ P 26890 2023 Scale on compl't:ion of another five i'e., 13.11.1994 Ft rther the contention ,:f thr a ppella nt/petitio ner that in view oi allovrin J the writ petition i.e, W,P.No.15366 of 2001, on 23.08.2012, hi:; se''vices can be reckoned fcr ,re purposed of fixing the seniority and alsc for fixing the scale or' pirv lrom the date of initial appointment i.e:., 13 11'1984 cannot be courtenanced for the reason that the challr:nge and submission:; in -tre aforesaid writ petition are only Wilh regard to seniority anci rot relating to the fixation of scale of pay. Frlrt ler, in the aforesaid writ )e: tion, the Commissioner of Collegiate Educaiion is one of the resporcjsnts and the state, represented by its Principal Secretary s r ot a party respondent and in view of th: ,;ame, the flnding rec,:rd3C therein are not binding on the State Government either for grarttilg seniority or for granting any scale or pay or any other benefits ill terms of the said order. On this ground also, the order impugneci loes not warrant any interference of this; rlot rt' The learnr:rl counsel for the appellant/petitioner ha; r'llied upon the decision o' t1is court in V. Sidda Reddy V. Government of Andhra Pradesh, the is';le involved in the said decision are whether the should be taken into account for the p'urpose of unaided s€rvi,t€ fixation of pay ard pension, for appointment to the Speciill (lrade Post on the basis o'l',utomatic Advancement Scheme. Further tht: Registrar General of Inc ia v. V. Thippa Setty, The Supreme Court. rral, observed that the re,gul;tr- zation of ad hoc employee should only br: p rospective and not ret.ros poctive and since the a ppella nt/ petitione r s er'rices were regularized w th effect from 12-08-1993 in pursuance: of the order paised in \,V. ),1'lo, 17066 of 1991 dated: 2l-O4-199'-i th'3 decision relied by then a:pellant/petitioner is not applicable to thr: facts of the present cas;e, For the reasons stated above, we do not find any infirmity r''r illegality in the impr.rgrer orders passed by the learned Singie JL dgte and the writ appeal is lc:ordingly dismissed".

11. In the refer< nce 9th cited. Dr.T.P.Srinivasan in his re pr(,rsentation, dated: 28 Og .2,)22, has stated that, he is rightfully e'ltitled for- reckoning his past service w.e.f. 13'11.1984, though his; services were regulariz;d w tl' effect from 12.08.1993 and requested tc re-fix his pension and pt nsionary benefits w.e.f. 13.11.1984, n'lti.rnally and confer all ,:onseouential beneflts and pay arrears along lvi:.h Interest thereof.

12. Dr,T.P.Sr nivasan has again filed a Writ Petition No 4+9 13 of 2022 in the Hor'blt: ligh Court for not reckoning the his sr:rvices w.e.f. 13. 11.1984, 7 9

13. In the reference 10th cited, the Hon,ble High Court in its order, dated: 15.12.2022 has d1-ected the responderiis to dispose of the representation, dated 28.09.2022 strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. wP_258e0;il;i mt a L2

14. In the clrcu mstance colleqiateed ucation in the refer a e reDo a 22 1 w. P.No. 4 4923 of 2022 herebv s .P. v sn f td. Dr w 9 B 1 f d f t H f f n e u e t n r I 1 by the 1lth m tsst ner of cited, Gov rnment n 'bl H bse et at, n a 1V r n f n n cko rno e e e a e n n t

15. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad shall take further necessary action ln the matter, accordingly.' KARUNA VAKATI SECRETARY TO GOVERNM ENT To The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad. The Individual concerned through the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad. (B) T P.N 3 r 6 o n f the rd c 20L an d d .05.2 8i extracted hereunder . "On the above analysis, the writ petitions directing the authoiities concerned to extend B.SRINIVASULU 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 25.71.1993, for the purposes of their pension and pensionary are disposed the benefit l0 benefits. Therr s hall however benefits fcr ]:h,) said period, allowances' SN, J r P 26E90 2023 entitled to actL a I monetarY form of aTreaTs of pay or (c) Ttre releva nt Dortion of the order of th ts Court in 7343 of 2O19. dated 24.11.2022 in oart icu la r W.P. N para Nos. 5,-6,, 7,8, 10 and 11are extracted heregnder.

5. Llnrler identical circumstances, the Divisiorr Berrch of the High Courr in \\'.P.No.8201 of 2016 dated 17.03 2016 rtrferring to Rules 13 and :1... of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pensic,n RtleS, 1980 which deal \^/itl-r t-le qualifying service of a temporary emFlo','ee for the purpose of p€yrr,ent of pension held that the qualifying st:rvice of a Government Servant shall commence from the date he ta <e:, charge of the post t,r uth r;h he ls first appointed with substantivel'' or in an officiating rl. t rnrDorary capacity. 6, :;usject to the exceptions contained in Cla']sr'ls (a) and (b) of Rule 13 cf the Rules a temporary employee shall f rrther satisfy the conditions stipulated under Rule 14 of the Rules for ccunting his temporary se[vice for pensionary benefits. Rules 13 ard 14 of the Andhra Prader;h llevised Pension Rules, 1980 deals with t he qualifying service of a tc mporary employee for the purpose - of payment of pension wh ich rr:ads as under: '.t l, Commen cement of oualifvi.no servtc e: Subject to the ,orovi::ions of the rules, qualifying service of a G tvernment servant s'tall commence from the date he takes che'rge of the post to vt,\lch he is first appointed either substartttve'y or in an offi c,ta ti )1 g o r te m pora ry ca pacity : Fro v ided that - I t 7 SN, J wP 26890 2023 (a) in the case of a Government servant in a CIaSS IV service or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent persionable post prior to the 17th 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 nocovered by clause (a), seruice rendered before attaining the age of eighteen (18) years shall not count, except for compZnsatioh gratuity. 14. Conditions subject to which service qualifies: (1) The service of a Government servant shatt not qualify duties aie and pay unless his 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 sentice in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government." 7. The Division Bench vide its order dated 17.O3.2016 in W.P,No.82O1 of 2O16 very ctearly held that the Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that temporary service shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra pradesh Revised pension Rutes, 1980. a. Under similar carcumstances in pursuance to the order dated 20.06.2017 passed in W.p.No,177OO of 2016 one Sri P. Dasharadham, approached the High Court for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ petition and the same was implemented by respondents therein vide Lr.No.6O47lCRP&RE,/C-2l2O18, dated 1O.1O.2018 and also communicated the same to the petitioner thereunder vide letter Rc.No.B1O/417O / 2OL5, dated O8.1O.2O18.

10. In W.P.No.1425 of 2OL9, under simitar circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court considered the issue where the past services of the applicant prior to their regularization can be taken into consideration for the purpose t2 SN, J \\ P 26390 2023 of pension. The Division Bench in its judgnrent dated 15,1O.2Of 9 referring to the judgments of the l\pex Court reported in l:20O1) 10 SCC 473 State of Tanril V' T'N' Registration tlepartment Ministerial Service Association at paras 9, 10 an(l 11 held hereunder: h Cou "9, :;imitar view was taken by a Division tler ch of the High Ctt, rt of ludicature at Hyderabad for tt)e State of Tilangan;, and the State of Andhra Pradesh in State of Andhra Pradesh \,'. M. Raia Rao and also the Karnataka llig'-t Court in B.H. Karn,ltaka Power Transmission Corporation Lirr ited' LO. In view of the iudoments of the ADeY t::. oglt-A-D-d- are of the view that ttis Dast service of the aoolica nt, who is the respon{ent herein, prior to Jfus-lQ_be cefEideJe-d for the ot Dension 11. .tt is also to be noted here that the orclers passed by the Tr,bLrnal in O.A.No.6524 of 2014 and 5a'ch dated 14.11.2A.14 were not challenged and they have beccme final. Therefo.e once the orders of the Tribunal are n(tt :hallenged and havt become final, there is no other 6'ption for the authorit ie; except to implement the same." above. refer,

11. The Apex Court in the iudgment reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&.S) in Prem Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at para 36 hr:lcl as under: "3(:.. There are some of the employees who hav'? not been regulartzett in spite of having rendered the services fc'r 30-40 or mor,= yetrs whereas they have been superannuatetl' As they havet wor ked in the work-charged establishmer,t, r,ot against any p. 11' cular proiect, their services ought ':c I'ave been regulartzctl under the Government instructions anc' eren as per the '1eci:;ton of this Court in State of Karnataka ve -sus Umadevi (3)11. r.h;:; Couft in the said decision has laid dorvtt ttlat in case service:; tleve been rendered for more than ten t'eatrs without the co'rc'' of the Couft's order, as one-time r.e)sure, the service:; t)e regularized of such employees. In the'f.tcts of the case, tlto,;e employees who have worked for ten yea -s or more shotrld )av'e been regularized. It would not be prop?r :o regulate them for :onsideration of regularization as othets tave been regttlar,ze d, we direct that their services be treate(t a:; a regular one. Hc,nt?ver, it is made clear that they shall not 5e entitled to ) l3 SN, J wP 26890 2023 claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regutarly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitted to receive the pension as en red thework-cha n s m b r em r, t lish nta esta bl,ishmen t shall be cou ted DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the impugned Memo of the 1'r respondent dated

03.07.2023 rejecting the claim ot the petitioner for reckoning services of the petitioner with efFect from 19.11.19g4 when the petitioner was initially appointed is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the High Court of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh passed in W.p. No.33936 of 2011 and batch wherein it has been held that even NMR temporary services prior to regularization of services shail be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits and therefore, the order impugned of the 1st respondent needs to be set aside. The learned counsel appearipg on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 24.77.2022 passed in W.p. No.7343 of 2019 and also the common order of Division Bench of this Court dated l4 SN, J \.rP 26390 2023 2O.LL.2O1B rassed in W.P. Nos. 20691, 20700, 2C7()l' 20fO2 and 21086 o' ..072. 6 The lea rned Assistant Government P[eader for Services-L aDDea rinq on behalf of resoondents dscs- n-gt aid submission made bv the learneclcounse disDute the __9 appearingl[l beh alf of the oetitioner.

7. A barr: perusal of the observations of the Apex Court and other courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that the services renderecl by an employee raght from the day the employee enters the rarork-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension' l3ut in the present case, the said legal position had beern totally agnored and the impugned memo, dated 03'07'2023 had been issu,:cl by the 1't respondent contending that regularization of service is with prospective effect only and hence, the request of the petitioner is rejectr:d stating it is not ft:asible for consideration, therefore, this Court opines that the subject issue requires reconsideration by the 1't resllondent in accordance to law, duly co'nsidering Y l5 the observations of the Apex Court and other Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above). SN, J wP 26890 2023

8. Takin (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_I, appearing on behalf of respondents, (c) The impugned Memo No.2t6/CE/At/2O21, dated 03.07.2023 issued by the Secretary to Government to the 2nd respondent herein (referred to and extracted above), (d) The relevant portion of the order of this Court in W.p. No. 33936 of 2011 and batch, dated O2.O5.2O18 (referred to and extracted above), (e) The retevant portion of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 7343 ot 2OJ-9, dated 24.11.2022 in particular para Nos. 5, 6, 7,9, 1O and 11 (referred to and extracted above), I 16 SN. J v, 26i190 2021 (f) The order of the Division Bench of this Court' dated 20.11.2018 passed in W'P'Nos'2O591' 2O7OA' 2O707" 2O7O2 ancl :1r.085 ot 2Ot2 (S) 'fhr: fact that the impugned Memo of the 1't respondent is without application of mind pas:;ed routine manner mechanically without consiclerring earlier orders of this Court in similar facts circu msta n t:e s. The rvrit Petition is allowed' The impugned Memo 1't No.216lCE,r A1/2023, dated Og.O7.2023 oi'the the claim of the Petitioner for respondent rejecting refixation <lf petitioner,s pension and pensionary benefits w.e.f. 13.11,1984 notionally and for release rcf the said benefits, al'rears with interest thereof is set aside and the respondenl:s are directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for re-fixation of the pension and pr::nsionery benefits to the petitioner by reckoning petitiorrerr services rendeied by the petitioner with effect from 1it'11'1984 notionally and further reconsider the request of the petitionerforreleaseofthesaidbenefitstothepetitioner in accorda nce to law, duly taking into consicileration the 7 l7 SN, J wP-26890 2023 observations of the Apex Court in the judgment (referred to and extracted above) and the Division Bench order of this court, dated 2O.11.201g passed in W.p.Nos.2O691, 2O7OO, 2O7OL, 2O7O2 and 21O86 of 2Ot2 and also the order of this Court, dated Z4.J.1..2O2Z passed in W.P.No.7343 of 2c.]-g and also the order, dated 02.05.2018 passed in W.p.No.33936 of 2011 & batch, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders thereon and duly communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitioner. However, there shalt be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUry REGISTRAR -t.. SECTION O6,"r* 2 ' The Principar Secretarv. Higher Education (cE) Department, Secretariat Buildings, The State of Tetinsana, . I ne uommtssioner. and Director of Collegiate Education, Telangana at Nampally, Hyderabad 9n" 99 to Sri S. Gopat Rao, Advocate tOpUCl ' Two ccs tc Gp for services'r, nigh do-uh"f;;il'" state or rerangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI . Two CD Copies - -Hu;;;r,b;, """ To, 1 3 4 TJ GJP 6 HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:28104t2025 ORDER WP.No.268Sl0 of 2023 l':/i'' I ':' t: I r'. 1,,,^, \'t;.'\, : .;l: -1 TSErl ti I ,lirii 2025 Pz r) -t, i. -", '-( . ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @tf''3 g*