Health Assistants), O/o. PHC, Kamalapur, Hanamakorida District, Telangana State v. Ramesh, S/o Rama Swamy, Aged about

Petition Under riection 15'1 CPC praying that in the circum;tances stated in the affidavit filed in ,,,1lppsrt of the petition, the High Court may :re pleased to direct the respondent:; to consider the claim of the petitioners for rer]utarization of their services retro s:)ective ly from the date of their initial aopointment from 2910512003 for the pur;rose of granting of annual grade increments, for promotion and pension. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Counsel for the Resp,:ndents : AGP FOR SERVICES - ll The Court made the fotlowing ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA RI ETI ONN 29 OF 23 ORD ER: Heard Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Services-If appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2 r a Draver as under: "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering claim of the petitioner for regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment from 29.05.2003 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, apart from violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services retrospectively from the date of their initial appointment from 29.05.2003 for the purpose of granting of annual grade increments, for promotion and old pension scheme, Telangana increment with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon,ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.,, 2 5N,l wP 29 i45 2023 'I I .\

3. Ther c;:s.e of the petitioners, in brief, is; tl at the petitioners \ =re (Male) on a contract basis through a regular recrrritment appointed as Multipurpose Health \s:,;istants process pLrrs.r,lnt to G.O.Rt.No.217 HM&FU/ dated ,2(;,C 2.2001 and G.O.R.t.l,lc.459 dated 22.05.2002. The sele(:ti( n was completed through a written examination, and apl)ointment orders were i;sued vrde Proc.Rc.Nos.E/29/MAL/20C2-13 and RC/1551ir10()2'-03 dated 29.05.2003, for 2324 pos:s, with a 100o/o gross :;alary, comprising Pay, Dearness Allowance (DA), and House Fle'nt Allowance (HRA), in the Revised )av Scale 1999 of Rr;3550-7150. Despite fulfilling all eligibility conditions arrc' rendering over 20 years of uninterrttpted and satisfactory :;€:rvice, the services of the petitioners remained contractual irrtil G.O.Ms.No.38 Finance Departnrernt dated 30.04.2023 a nd G.O.Ms.No.51 Health, Medical & Family Welfare Dep.rrtment dated 03.05.2023 had been issrterl which regularized treir servlces only with prospective effec:, .hereby denying the r,:titioners annual grade increments, prrn otional avenues, ancl fensionary benefits. It is further the c,rsr,r of the petitioners l hat as per G.O.Ms.No.16 Financ,l (HR-I) Department :liated 23.02.2016, read with Section 1()-1, of the f 3 sN,j w P _2954s_2023 A.P. Public Employment Act. 1994, the petitioners satisfy all the prescribed conditions for regularization from the date of their initial appointment.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioners that, in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioners to consider their claim for regularization of their services retrospectively from the date of their initial appointment i.e., from 29.05.2003, for the purpose of granting of annual grade increments, for promotions, and for the benefits oF the old pension scheme, the respondents have not considered their requests as on date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by fiting the present Writ petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the subject issue in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 24.11.2O22t passed in W.p.No.7343 of 2019 in the case of yata Satireddy v. State of Telangana. The relevant portion paragraph No.15 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: 4 S N,J v'tF 2l 645 2023 \ '1.5. This Court opines that the peti :io1er cannot be deprived of lris constitutional rirStlt for pension ,lxcept by authority of law since pensiorr is not.r i)c'unty, but property within the meaning oF Article .i(10-A of the Constitution of India. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstanaes anci ll.u13 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Rr:vir;ed Pension Rules, 1980 which deal with the qua ifyinq servi,:e cf a temporary employee for the purprlst: of payrnerrt of pension and the law laid down bv the Apex C,rrrrt in the matter of State of lharkhand :lnd others v. litendra Kumar Srivastava and artother reporte:1 in 2013 (12) SCC 210 and the lirrv aid down by the Division Bench judgment of the l-ligh Court in WP No.B2O1 of 2O16 in State of Anchra Pradesir,R.ep. by its Secretary, Finance & Ple nr'ing and the view taken in all the judgments referrec: to and ext;-acted above, the Writ Petition is allowecj and the Re:;pondents are directed to forthwlth pro(ess the per sion proposals of the petitioner returne I t,'ide Lr. D.A. (:) s.A. No. 523lAr 120t5- 16, dated 1 3. 0 1 . 21) 16 of the L'r Respondent, and issue the oe ns ton oavme nt or er sanctionin o the nensio n irn-d pensioylarv benefits dulv computinq the s-errtice from the date of aopointme i.e., 211.06,1994 for the puroose of sanction of oension, within a period of 3 weeks from tlle 5 SN,J w P _29645 _2023 date of receiot oftheo rder. There shall be no order as to co t."

6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (202O)l SCC (L&S) in prem Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh andothers, 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 even 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 em ployees. In the facts of theca se, those em Dlovees who have work d for ten vears m h b 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 6 SN,J \ tP 25,645 2023 .\ clear tl'ret they shall not be entitled to claim ng any Ju:::; of difference in wages had they beer continur:,'i in service regularly before attaining lhe a g e,rf ; .r pe ra n n u a tio n. I!rcylhA!!-be-€nlltlCll le-Legei frgrtr-the reoular establishment andt hel v them rioht fr mt he: sgryrc(.' $re ndered work-cha rqed establi.Shment shall be counted as oualifyinq. servicr:-for ourPose of oension." entered -

7. The jr.rdgment dated 23.O8.2OL7 in Civili ,\ppeals No.1O8O6 of 2Ot7 with numbers 1O8O5 of :1017 and 1O8O7 ot ,2OL7 reported in (2O19) 10 SCC l;42t in HabibKhan rr State of Uttarakhand at paras 6 and 7 it isobserved as under: ''6. The parimateria provision contairle(l in Rrrle 3.17(ii)of the Punjab Civil Services Rt'e; had ber:r struck down by a Full Bench decisiorr oI the Pu n jab and Haryana High Court in k:esa - Chand v. State of Punjab. The challenge bY' thr,: State i]!tainst the aforesaid decision of the =u I Bench o' the Punjab and Haryana High Court tva; negativerd by this Court. The matter came up fo' consid(:ration before this Court, once again, in Punjab iEB versus Narata Singh. While dealinr.l 7 SN,J wP 29645 2023 with the said question this Court in para 25 oF the report held that the Full Bench declsion of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was perfectly justified in striking down Rute 3.L7(ii) of the Punjab Civil 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. provtsions

7. As already observed, the of Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations applicable to the State of Uttarakhand are parimateria 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 why the period of service rendered on work- charged basis by the appellants should not be counted for purposes of computation of "qualifying service" for grant of pension. The parimateria 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 appellants are entiUed to reckon the 8 S N,I wP 29 i45 2023 \ period r:)f work-chargecl service for purposes of computi; tion of "qualifying service for granr: of pension. We order accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the impugned ordrlrs passed D/ the High Court."

8. The Rrrview Petition (C) No.9 of 2018 filed before the Apex Court Aggrieved by the orders dated 23.O8.2oL7 passed in Civil Appeal No.1O8O5 of 21017 in Habib Kharr v State of Uttarakhand was dismissed by the Apex (]ourt vide orders dated 16.O1'2018 and a similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the judgment dlated 18.O1 .2022 in the State of Guiar''at and others v Ialsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel obsenviing as follows: "I: is unfortunate that the .State continttec, to tak(: the services of the respondent as an ;ld hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to cont(:n( that a:; the services rendered by the respond :n l: are ;rd-hoc, he is not entitled trr pensior/pensionary benefit. The State cannot bt: perrnit:r:d to take the benefit of its own wrong. To ta,ke the Services continuouslv for- 3Q vea rs and thereafter to contend that emDlcr vee who h 30 ve s rendered arl_ 9 5N,J wP 29645 2023 l! s is noth qb ut nr b so ab!e.Asa D nsion welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. e In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed." In a judgment of the Apex Court in State of 9. Jharkhand and others versus Jitendra Kumar Srivastava was held and another reported in 2013 (12) SCC 210 that pension and gratuity are not bounty, but property within the meaning of Article 3OO-A of the constitution of India. Paragraphs 15 andl7 of the report states as 't u nder: "16. h r m t r h s s h h rel t n h c n e as riqht in "prooertv"' Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under: 10 5 N,l \ /P 2!r645 2023 ^1 :iC0-A. Persons not to be deprived o' prcper:) save by authority of law. No persor shall :)(l deprived of his property save b1 autl^or t7 of law." Once we proceed on tlral prernis,3, the answer to the question posed by us, in the t eginning of this judgment becomes '.oc obviou:; A person cannot be deprived of thi:, pension without the authority of latn, which is ther constitutional mandate enshrined in Articlt, 30tl A rf the Constitution. It follows that attenlp of the appellant to take away a part of pens or or gratrrity or even leave encashment with,)u any staiutory provision and under the umbrtrgt of ad.rlinistrative instruction cannot b(,, counte nanced. '.1."7. It hardly needs to be emphas;i;:e<1 that t1-rt: executive instructions are not havinit statutory character and, therefore, cannot bo terme(; as "law" within the meaning of :ht,: afores,rid Article 300-A. On the basis of suclt tt cirr:ular, which is not having force of law, :ht: appelli: nt cannot withhold even a part of perrsiorr or gral.uity. As we noticed above, so far a:i statutqrv Rues are conce for withho ldinq prov!=s lv n Denston q ratui. been i:ry such Provision in these positio r would have been different." Had thert,: Ru les, :hr: in t o!: / 11 SN,J wP_29645'2023

10. This Court opines that the requests made by the petitioners to consider their claim for regularization of their services retrospectively from the date of their initial appointments need to be considered in accordance to Law as per the observations of the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above.

11. Taki nq into nsidera tion: (i) The submissions made by learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondents, (ii) The order dated 24.LL.2O22 passed in W.P.No.7343 ot 2019, (iii) The view of the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above and again enlisted below: \ \ (a) (2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (b) (2019) 10 SCC s42 (c) Judgment dated 1A.OL.2OZ2 in State of Gujarat and others v. Talsibhak Dhanjibhai patel SN,J vJt 21t645 2023 '\- 1 \i \ (d) 2cr13 (12) SCC 21O - The .arrit petition is allowed as prayed for. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their s,ervices from the date of their. initial .retrospectir/ely appointmerrt i.e., from 29.05.2003, for the purpose of granting annual grade increments, promotions, and old pension scheme, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of rr:ceipt of a copy of this order, in acr:ordance with law, duly taking into consideration ,the observations of the Apex Court and other Courts in the judgments I'referred to and extracted above), anrJ pass appropriate nrders and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners, However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a se:1uel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any. pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPTJTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// , Secretariat, Stete of Telangana at Hyderabad. I SECI]ON OFFICER 1. The Principal liecretary, Health lvledicat ana'lamily Wetfar: Department, 2. The Director c,f. Public Health and Famity Welfare Dep:lrtrnent, State of 3. The District lvle iical and Heatth Officer, Hanamakonda Distri rt. 4. One CC to SRI \|AYAKAWAD| RAMESH, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to Gtr for Services-ll, High Court for th'e State of Telangana at 6. Two CD Copies Telangana, Koti, Hyderabad. Hyderabad lOt.l'j To N. SA MP c .C. TODAY K' a. J ) -, .l \:\ z,tj ,1.' IE STA rE tl ii lr,i'i 2[ o t 'a s r/, i c\ HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.29645 of 2023 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. I b .)K b