Habsiouda. Baoh Amberpet. Jama I Qsmania, Hyderabad- 1. V.V.Mohan Rao, S/o Late. V.Krishna Rao v. Bi;ui; neOav, blo V. Late. lndra Sdna Rqddy Aged about 70 years, occ

to G.MS No. 160 161 and 162 0f panchayat Raj and Rurar Deveropment (E-,) Department dt.'8.05.2009 and tater pursuant to GoMS No. 206, 207 and 208 of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E.ll) Department dt.06.07.2009 on humanitarian grounds, as was done in simirar cases of Sri G. Venkateswarru (APAS) vide G O Rt No 47Bg (Generat Administration (SC E) Dqpt., dt.04.11.199?, and recentty, in the case of Sri. K. $ampati ftap, ln.chqrge Superintending Engineer, (panchayat Raj (Retd.) pursuant to G.O.RI., ruo. ia Panchayat Raj and Rurat Devetopment (E.t) Dgpt., (t.27.0 1.2Q16,.. ,il; arbitrary, against Artrcle 14. 16 and 21 of the ConstitUtion of lndia, applicablf Service rulgs and principles of natural justice and consequenfly difect the Reqponpentq to consider/dispose of the represgntatign qf the petitionerq dt .01 .07.2016. for (isbursement of pensionery benefitg by taking into accqunt petifioners servicr: rendered at Ap Scooters Limited (APSL) N 10F 2017 P. NO: 13873 OF 017 Petitipn unrier section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstanees qtatefl iq Ihe affidavit filed i, support of the petition, the High Cou( may be ,,UU."O;;;;;; the Regpondents lo consider and dispose of the petitiongr,s repreqentation d1.01.02.2016 for disbur:spmenl of pensionqry bepgfits py taking inlo accourll p1 the petitioner'B service rendered in Ap. gcooters Limited, on numanitafiqO grQunds, aq was done in similar cases of sri G, venkatqEryar,q (ApAs) vld-e G.O.Rt No 4789 (Generat Adminisrration (SC,E) Dept., dt.04,1irr;r, ;; in the case of Sri K. Sampati Rao, tn-charge Supqrints4Q;pg elOingrr, flQenttr, (Panchayat Raj (Retd.r pursuant to GO.Rt, No. 73 panch.Vr,'nu1"u4l Rrrgl Deyelopment (E tr Dept, dt.2t 012016, vide G.O.RI No. 4Z;; ];*erel Administration (SC E) Dept., dt.O4.11.1ggl, pending Qisposal of the main Writ Counsel for the petitioners: M/s B.RACHNA REDDY, SENIOR COUIISEL Counselfor the Respondents: cp FoR s'iiiv[E5 The CqUrt made the following: ORDER I I : I i I I Ilr THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A WRIT PETITION No. I 1 162 of 2OL7 ORDER: The petitioners are retired employees of the Panchayat Raj ald Rural Development Department. They initially served in the Andhra Pradesh Scooters Limited (APSL), a Government Undertaking established in 1974. On account of closure of APSL in 1994, the petitioners were absorbed into the Panchayat Raj Department ln varlous capacities such as Blueprint Operators, Junior Assistants, \pists, and Assistant Engineers during the years 1993 and 1995. Their serrices were later regularized through G.O.Ms.Nos. 160, 161 and 162 dated

18.05.2009 and G.O.Ms. No. 206, 2OZ and 2O8 dated

06.07.2009 of the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.II) department. It is their grievance that their previous 18 years of service in APSL was not taken into account as total qualifying service for pension and retirement benefits. It is their case that similarly situated persons who rendered services elsewhere (like APSRTC, Visakhapatnam Port etc) prior to joining the Panchayat Raj Department were given the benefrt of past service for pensionary benefits, however, the same has 2 Ng(, J been unduly denied to the petitioners in spite of making representation dated Ol.O7 .2016 to the respondent-authorities.

2. Heard Ms. B. Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners; and learned Government Pleader for Services. Perused the record

3. Learned Senior Counsel made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit. She relies on the Order dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Court in W.P (TR) No.2645 of 2OL7, and contends that the past service of similarly situated employees of A.P. Scooters Lirnited, we re considered for pension and retirement benefits at the time of retirement from Panchayat Raj Department, and denial of that benefit to the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary 4 . Havir.g r:onsidered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that W.P.(TR) No.2645 of 2077 pertatns to a similar issue of absorption of erstwhile APSL employees into the Panchayat Raj Department. This Court, by referring to similar matters in W.P.No.l4962 of 2006, dated

19.01.201Cr, and W.P.No.14855 of 2018 dated 14.11.2022, disposed o[ thc writ petition by observing at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 as follows: ry/ / / 3 "6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the services of the petitioner in A.P. Scooters Limited at Sangareddy have not been taken into consideration by the Department while sanctioning the pension and gratuity to him' Admittedly' the A.P. Scooters Limited was also a Government company and therefore on its abolition, all the employees have been disbursed to various Departments of the Government and they have also been granted pay scales and revised pay scales. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has put in Government sewice from the date of his initial appointment in A'P'scooter Limited i'e" on 25.11.1976. ln view thereof and in accordance with the Rules 13 and 14 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules' the 25.11.1976 has to be taken into entire services from consideration. ln view of the above, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to reckon the pension and gratuity of the petitioner by taking into consideration the entire service i-e., from the date of initial appointment 25-1'1.1976 and to sanction the same and pay the balance amount to the petitioner with simple interest at 8% per annum from the date of initial appointment to the date of payment after his retirement' The entire amount shall be paid to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order'"

5. Admittedly, the petitioners herein previously served APSL, and as the APSL Unit was closed, the petitioners were 1n I 4 absorbed in the Palchayat Raj Department and adjusted in various cadres. A perusal of the material papers furnished with the writ petition would show that the past service of similarly situated ernployees who worked in other departments (like APSRTC, Visakhapatnam Port etc.), were taken into considerati()n as total qualifying service for pension and retirement benefits, at the time of retirement from service. Further, this Court in WP(TR) No.2645 of 2Ol7 has adjudicated a similar issue and held that the petitioner therein is entitled to the relief ol' counting his past service in APSL (from the date of initial appointment in APSL) for calculating the pension and retirement benefits. The issue in WP(TR) No.2645 of 2Ol7 being similar to this writ petition, this Court is of the view that the petitioners herein are entitled to the same relief as was granted in WP(TR) No.2645 of 2Ol7

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 15.02.2024 in WP(TR) No.2645 of 2OI7. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL, on this FRIDAY, THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE //TRUE COPY// sD/-A. SRINtvasa #oov. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR A/ qECT|ON 0rrrcen T[re Pri0cipal Secretary Panc[6y4t E?l anO Rural Development Department (PRRDD) Secretanal ^Hutldings, Saitabad, Hyderabad -elanganq Siate, State dfTelan!ana-5oo022 Tq 1 \ ?

3. ,4 p The Principal Secretary Finance and Flanning Departmerlt Searelariat alliiii.t!.''s?ifibiJ,'iiiaer.auao relansana slatej- -1i0qo?2 ?,[: 88.'", J$ r m€p u0 s E 3,'I ufl 'mn'r"l?,l,u3,Lru o' rer q ns a n a, ar Hvder6bad. [Qur] Tlyo CD CoP(eP t PS B ! HIGH COURT DATED:2110312025 ORDER I,UP.No.11162 ot 2017 , u I t rrtE STa I4: ( (t -)3 01 nr:, 21125 I &Fsp^TcH pO l ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0I rt