K.Muthaiah v. Dastrict Audit Officer, State Audit, Khammam ant others

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE PULLA KARTHIK W.P.No.25 446 6f 2025 ORDER: With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itsdlf' when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri 2. TodaY, B.Kamalakara Rao, Iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the subject of the prEsent writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this pourt in W'P'No' 1787 of 2Ol9 d,ated 24.3.2025 and requested this Court to pass similar order in the present $,rit petition also. The sa]rne is not seriously disputed by the learned Governrnent Pleader appehring for the respondents' In view of the above, following {he said order, this writ petition 3. is disposed of in terms of the order passed in W P'No 1787 ol 2Ol9 d,ated 24.3.2025. The miscellaneous hpplications, if any' shall stand losed. There shall bc no order as to {osls, C //TRUE CO PYII sD)- B.REKHA RANI s STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER riat, Hyderabad, State To o

1. The Principal Secretary, Finance Depa[tment, Sec 2 J 4 t 6 7 partment, Abids, Hyderabad of Telangana. The Direitor of the Treasuries and Acqounts De The District Collector, Nalgonda Distridt. The Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Nalgon The District Treasury and Accounts Department One CC to SRI KAMALAKARA RAO qATHINA' Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|I|, High Court Hyderabad. [OUT] rivo cds to GP FoR SERVICES-Il, Hbh Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] R SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 9. Two CCs to GP FO Hyderabad [OUT] da District. , Nalgonda District. Advocate [OPUC] for the State of Telangana, at 8

10. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of the order da tdd 24.o3.2025 in wP.No.'l 7871201 9) PSK K I HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 CC TODAY \ ORDER WP.No.25446 ot 2025 \: '1' ;,t.j,, ',:- \.i ''- il J,./ ' ./2' iir25 i:\ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ Ot\ HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.tlet or z019 ORDER: Heard Smt. Kiranmayler learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioners, !earned Government Pleader for Fi n ance and Planning appearing on behalf of the reslondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri D.Rarha Krishna, learned counspl appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 6 an{ learned Government Pleader for fndustries appeaqing on behalf of the respondent Nos.7 to 9.

2. The oetitione aporoachbd this Court seekin q the oraver as under: I "...To issue a wRrT d, a=*rtro**, calling for all the connected records including Circular Memo No. 8242-A/329/A1/HRM- VII/2077, dated 22.07.20t7 and Circutar Memo No. t2O6/476/AU HR|4-VII/2O17, dated 13.70.20L7 of the 1'r Respohdent wherein the absorption of the Petitionefs as surplus and redeploying them in Government Departments by invoking orders issued in GOMs. No. 24 Finance (SPMC) Department dated 9.1.2002 has been cancelled and declhred null and void ab initio as it is against th$ orders issued in 2 GOMS. No. 24 and the provisions of' l\ct 2 of 1994 and also Act 1,4 of 1997 and cluash the same as illegal, improper, arbitrar-y and violative of Articles 74, 76 of the Colstitution of India and principles of Natural Just ce and declare the action of the 4th & 5th Resccndents in returning the pay bills of the 2'd & 3nd Petitioner and the action of the 6th Re:;pondent in directing the 9th Respondent to clairn the 1st Petitioner's salary under HOA 2BO/284 and not 070/077 without any Notice to the petilioners as illegal, improper, unjust, viole ti ,/e of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and principles of Natural Justice and prrsr; such order or orders as deemed fit in the inter est of justice. "

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 District Employment Office and working there until retirement, the respondents have not released the retirement benefits namely pensiort, gratuity, arrears of PRC, Group Insurance claimed and D,A arrears to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petit oners filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD: i' 3

4. Th r oft e coun r ffidavi on behalf of resoo ndent NorT in W.P.No.22 351 of 2018 as extracted hereunder: "It is further informe{ that brought to my notice the names of all such employees who were absorbed in SMPCs have be removed from the rolls of the Corporation. The P.F., account of the employees have been close Their names were also not considered under ifurcation of united A.P.S.C.R.I.C. Ltd., by the shieta Bhide Committee. E f,. b Therefore the entirb issue has been submitted to the goverrlment through the Lr.No.ELIRIC/Admnl 829/2019/504, dated 26.04.20L9 by the Man+ging Director and requested the APc & Prilncipal secretary to Government to Agricultufe & Cooperation Depaftment to kindly send a suitable reply to the Finance Department (HRM-VII), Department to pay the retirement benefits to alli the ex-employees of A.P.S.C.R.I.C. Ltd., who are retired from seryice in SMPCs of various Telangana pistricts and confinue all the ex-employees of APSCRIC Ltd., Hyderabad who are still working in various SMpCs of Telangana Districts in includirig payment of salaries of every month in terms of q.O.Ms. No./24, dated 09.07.2002, as all such staff have joined in SMpCs as per approvals of the corfipetent Authority on permanent absorption basis. After perusal of the ptoceedings mentioned above from time to time I aF of the opinion that since the names of all such hmployees who were absorbed in SMPC have beQn removed from the rolls of the corporation. The E.p.F., account of the employees have been closed pnd their names were also not considered under bifurcation of united 4 A.P.S.C.R.I.C. Ltd., under IX Schedule Institutions by the Shiela Bhide Committee arrd all the employees deployed from APSCRIC Ll.d., have been allocated employees-ID number:; and new GPF Accounts were opened in the narnr: of each and every employee deployed to SM Prl, Ranga Reddy and other District from the Corplration and have been completely detached from the Corporation and further certain ex-ernployees of the Corporation who were retired while'a,orking in SMPC have been paid retirement benefit:; (earned leave encashment etc) by the emplolrsg s11s. the CorDorataon is not deployment to SMPC, liable to settle the retirement benefats to retired emolovees of the district emDlovment exchanqe, Ranqa Reddv District who were e district em plovment absorbed in exchanqe, Ranoa Reddv district on oerl!!Al!C!!t absorotion basis."

5. The relevant oortion i.e., oaraoraoh No.17 of the iudoment of this Court dated 14.11.2042 oassed in W.P.No.14855 of 2O18 in "K.Muthaiah Vs. Dastrict Audit Officer, State Audit, Khammam ant others", reported in 2023 (1) ALD 387 (TS), is extracted hereunder: "17. In a judgment of the Apex C()rrt in the matter of State of Jharkhand and others .'/. litendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in 2013 (12) SCC 210 it was held that pension arrd gratuity are not bounty but property within the nreaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the report state ar; under: 5 "16. The fact remaing that there is an imprimatur to the legal prirlciple that the right to receive pension is recoQnized as a right in "property". Article 300-A of the Constitution oF India reads as under: "3OO-A. Persons not to be deprived of properfy save by authority of law.-No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." Once w1e proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person carlnot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-4 of the Codstitution. It follows that attempt of the appellPnt to take away a part of pension or gratdity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be coun{enanced.

17. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instruclions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as "law" within the meaning of tthe aforesaid Article 300-4. Orl tne basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold even a part of pension or gratuity. As wF noticed above, so far as statutory Rules are concerned, there is no provision for withhblding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been iny such provislon in thesb Rules, the position _would have been d iFFerent, "" 6

4.O 4 P 77L9 o 21 is extracted hereunder: 6 "12. Having regard to the rival (:ontentions and material on record, this Court finds that for all practical purposes, the petitioner was initially appointed in respondent No.6 organi:Iation and subsequently been deputed to responde:n' No.3 in ha s been the year 2013. T e vear 2o13 renderino his se with re ]l()ndent No.3- Thouoh the o itioner of 6 emplovee of has oiven the nsta erstw ile APSC ICR or loC t rrda'r+ N.r ? been oaid retiremen denial of the same tlaVIt emDlovees have beel leave as oer thear entitlement, the o€titioner and h ,.v here is no the resDondent s in their if the said ed en ashment of who have been roanization Therefore, t mittinq relief to the Detitioner alone nlaced Dersons. The ju(lgments other simila relied upon by the learned counsel For the petitioner are on the eligibility of a , person to receive pension or gratuity u[)o1 his superannuation. In this case, this Court firrds that the respondents are not denying the eligi:ility of the petitioner to the retirements benefit:; :;r+h as gratuity, leave encashment and pensior lut. are only saying that the petitioner is eligible f'lr such benefits from its parent organizatio|r i.e., respondent No.6. Admittedly, the responclelt No.6 is financially weak and after the bifurcatir:n of the States into Andhra Pradesh and Telangarra, the name of the petitioner has not been include<l in the list of employees of respondent No.6 for allrcation to the respective States. Admittedly, his natne has been considered as a Government servan:. At this stage, the respondents cannot take a starrd that petitioner is only an employee of respondert No.6 and therefore retirement benefits have to be settled by respondent No.6 alone. This st,rnd of respondents is susta nable. are clirected Therefore, res DOn ent 1 o L ,,7 7 n r e h m is reti m en I encashment refera t rdance wi h w date of t G ve s t benefits su ension x ft, fth r N h s tc in r f

7. The relevant portion of he impuqned Circular + Memo No.8242-At32g/AL thpm-VIItZOtl , dated

22.07.201.7 is extracted hereunder: In "5. this cpntext, all departments/District .Collecto/s are informed that Government have issued O{taiteO guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMPC) Department dated 09.0L.2002 for redeploymenf and absorption of surplus work-charged establiFhment and surplus staff in different categories of lposts in Government Departments into existing vacancies ' of other departments and also the pohers were delegated to District Collectors for deployment of such resources in the categories loiver than zonal, multi zonal and state cadre post$. These orderd are obviously not applicable to absorption '' of employees in Public S(ctor Undertakings, Societies, or other organi4ations/bodies under Government departments. Declaring the employees of AP State Cq-operative irrigation Corporation Limited as surplus and redeploying them in Government depar]tments by invoking orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMPC) Department ddted:09.01.20p2 is against the orders issued in the said G.O. and the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and also Act lf of 1997 and hence null and void abinitio.

6. Therefore, such ord departments/District prs, if any, issued by Collectors a llotting L-l 8 surplus employees from Ap State ()c-operative Irrigation Corporation Limited or sirnilai pubtic sector undertakings, societies, c,r other organizations / bodies etc., to (3()vernment departments would be in contravention of G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMpC) Department dated:1g.01.2002 as well as Act 2 of 1994 and Act L4 of 7997, and hence null and void ab initio. 7. Hence all the Departments and the District collectors concerned are ins;tructed to cancel such orders if any issued and r-epatriate such persons to their parent org;rnizations immediately, besides initiating Ci,;ciplinary proceedings against the concerned ,tf.iciils 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 frxing the responsibility for such illegal orders. B. It is also clarified that such persons of public sector undertakings, societies, c r other organizations / bodies etc., who were absorbed into Government Departments in violation of the orders issued G.O.Ms.N_o-24, Finance (SMpC) Department dated:09.01.2002 and the lrrcvisions of Act 2 of L994 and also Act 14 of tggT are not eligible for any b-enefits such as pension, g.itpity, commutation oF pension and compa! sionate appointments etc., on par with.the Go.rernment employees in Government Departmenrs Such employees are eligible only for the benefit:; which are available in their parent organizations arrd such benefits have to be paid by their parent organizations onlY.

9. The Dlrector of Treasuries and Ac(.ounts, the Director of Works Accounts and the p.ry and Accounts Officer, Hyderabad shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the responsible officers/staff for admitting the bills in violation of the Section-5 of Act 2 of 7994." 9 a. The rel vant Dortion of the imouo ned Circular Memo No.12O6l 476/Ar.tHcM-vttt20L7. o.20L7 a er: "4. All the Heads of Departments/District Collectors are directed to return the service registers/LPCs of'the surplus btuff of Corporations or similar public sector underfakings, societies, or other organizations / bodids 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 1994 and Act L4 of t99V, to their parent Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations/bodies etc., so as to enable them to claim their emoluments.

5. The Director of Treqsuries and Accounts, the Director of Works Accourfts and the pay and Accounts Officer, Hyderabad are directEd not to honour the pay bills of the durplus employees of Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizatiofrs / bodies etc.,. who were deployed/allotted to Governlnent departments in contravention of G.O.Ms. No'.24, Finance (SMPC) Department flateO 09.0t.2002 as well as Act 2 of 1994 and Act fa of L997."

9. Th lt Irlrr rrr a nt ion i. fth a_ Anav a^rrFf rairriP+arf 1 2 M h h No.22 f ,nt s ro\ sca "22. We find nothing i the basis of which there coul the present case on possibly be room to I 10 ..,, rhat it would be inequitable to hold the state 111.-.nment to its promise. Out of - 08 TRCS ::::; under tne Scheme, the burdern that the fl.-,".nment was well aware and thottght that it iJrfJ comfo,tably be.ar, only 19 or 20 units have ill" established and are functional. In any case, ir.'"o" impact of incentives so offered under the i.i"." and the consequential burden nrust have [.en weiqned carefully when such prornise was -rae ana the Scheme was formed. We may resoectfully refer to the following obsen'ations of rhis Court in S'V.A. Steel Re-Rolling Nlil s Ltd' v' State of Kerata l(20L4) 4 SCC 1861 to vrhich one of us (Anil R. Dave, J.) was a party: (SCl p' 194, para 30) h s c r t IO DISC lavinq dow to its v n t h .without her lev n lve anv n sh ul n h r f mmoral on the afi: of the a tas er its w ls ;;t- NCLS o

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.Joga! Reddy and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition'vide its order, dated 04.06.2024 darecting the respondent Nos.l to 5 E. 11 thereunder to treat the petitioner thereunder as a Government Servant 4.e., the .frrptoy"" of respondent No.3 thereunder i.€., thj District Coltector, Rangareddy District and setfle [he retirement benefits of the petitioner there und]er such as Gratuity, encashment of leave, pension Ctc., in accordance with rutes, expeditiousty, preferablylwithin a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order, dated O4.06;2024.

11. The tearned counset app{a.ing on behalf of the respondents also does not dlspute the submission made by the learned counsel nppearing on behatf of the petitaoners that the present Writ petition goutd be disposed of in simitar lines as per order,' dated 04.06.2024 passed in W.p.No.2llg of2o21 (referred to and extracted above).

12. r N of h rtin n r n m I e " I submit that subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, we have acquired irlformation with regard to t2 pensionary benefits being granted to slmilarly placed persons through Right to Information ,qct, 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 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 class/2020, dated

09.09.2020 Copy of the Letter No.A2IRTI/13t1/2020, dated 24.O9.2020 Copy of the Letter No.C2IRTI/462'/2020, dated 24.09.2020 Copy of the Letter No.1210/MD,/ROC/Admn/2020- 27 dated 05.10.2020

13. A bare perusal of the above referred materia! documents filed by the petitioners in s\rpno.t ot petitioners reply affidavit clearly.indicates the fact as borne on record that pensionary benefits admittedly had been granted to similarly placed persons like the petitioners. Hence, this Court opines that petitioners herein are also entitled for grant of simiiar benefit as per law. t5

1.4. r n a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counse! appearing on behalf of [he respondents. c) The contents of the impugned Circular Memo No.8242-A/329/ AtIHRM-vfil1Ot7,

22.07.2fl1r7 (referred to and e>itracted above) d) The contents of the imp[gned Circular Memo No.l2OG I 47 6 / AL / HRM-Vtt / 2017, dated t3.t0.20t7 (referred to and extracted abovp) r e) The observations of the Rpex Court and Other Courts in the judgments (reftrred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:- .) 2023 (1) ALD 387 (rS) ii) The order of this Court, dated 04.O6.2024 passed in W.P.No.277L9 ot 2021. iii) 201s (9) scc 132 f) The specific averments made at para No.3 of the reply affidavit filed by the petit oners (referred to and extracted above) and the contents of the materia! documents filed along with the reply affidavit i.e., letters, dated O9.O9.2O2O, 24.O9.2O2O, 05.1O.2O2O and 24.O9.2O2O (referred to and extracted above). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are darected to consider the request of the petitioners for issuance of appropriate orders for payment of retirement benefits namely pension, gratuity, arrears otf pRC, Group Insurance claims and DA arrears along with interest for the period of the work done by petitioners in the office of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of naturat justice, by providing an opportunity of personat hearing to the petitioners, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the I 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) without reference to the impugned Circutar Memo No.8242-A/329lALlHRM-Vtt/2,OL7, dated 22.07.2OL7 and the impugned Circular Memo t I 15 No.L2O6 / 476lAU HRM- vil / 2bLt, dated 13. tO .ZOLI, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the orddr and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner herein. I

15. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. However, there shalt b. ,o orf". as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellpneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. MRS. JUSIrCE SUREPALLT NANDA Date: 24.O3.2O25 Lpd I I