In a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in

Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the additional affidavit Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. K. KIRAN MAYEE Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA w TPE TION No.36464 OF 2018 ORDER: Heard appearing Smt. K.Kiranmayee, learned counsel the petitioners, learned on behalf of Government Pleader for Services-I aPPearing on behalf of the resPondents. iti ners ou rt th e Draver as under: "...declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing Circular Memo No' 8242-A/32glAIlHRM-VII/2017, dated 22-07 - 2017 and Circular Memo No' t2O6/476/AUHRM-VII/Z}|7, dated 13-10- 20L7...."

3. The case petitioners were of the petitioners, in brief, is that the 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 petitioners were not paid their dues. Though the petitioners submitted representations to the Respondents requesting the 2 respondents to release the retirement benefits namely pension, gratuity, arrears of pRC, Group Insurance claimed and D.A. arrears, however no action had been taken by the respondents on the said representations. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. PE SED TH REC

4. Th e releva nt Dortion of he cou nter affidavit filed on ehalf of reso ondent No.7 is extra cted he reu n der: "It is further informed that brought to my notice the names of all such employees who were 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 rhe Shieta Bhide Committee. Therefore the entire issue has been submitted to the government through the LT,No.EURIC/Admn/ 1329/20t9/504, dated 26.04.2079 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 seivice 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 absorption 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 the Corporation who were retired while working in SMPC have been paid retirement benefits (earned leave encashment etc) by the employee after the CorD oration is not deployment to SMPC, liableto settle the retire ent benefits to retirede olove s of the district em olovm ent howere excha noe, Ranq a Red dv Di em olovm ent distri ex hanqe, Ra nqa Red dv district on I,erman ent ab orotion basis." r lon e s. Th iudomen t of this Court dated 14,LL .2022 oassed in ,No.14855 of 2O18 tn .K.M uthai hVs Dist ict hers" No.1 w. Kha r Au n 23 1 D3 TS here nder: 4 "17. In a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in 2013 (12) SCC 210 it was held that pension and gratuity are not bounty but property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the report state as under: "16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a righf in "property". Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under: "300-4. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. -No person shall be deprived of his pr:operty save by authority of law." Once we proceed on that 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 300-4 of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even 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 300-4. 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 5 any such provision in these Rules, the position would have been d iFferent. "" ro thi Co n le nt o 6 dated o4.O6.2024 oassed inW. P.No. 27719of extra ed ereund r o2L TS s T o n T er e m !e v .3 rre en b itio r e 20 f ee of u o 6 m be nd ut n "12. Having reg ard to the rival contentions and material on record, this Court finds that for all practical PurP oses, the Petitioner was initially ap pointed in resPondent No.6 organiza tion and SU bsequentlY been deP uted to resPondent No'3 in the year 20 13. Th en No he ins hil AP c c a of he m r t t e if he sai h e ho hav o I wed nc itl me e tn he ffe nt hi! The judgments h relied upon bY the learned counsel for the petitioner are on the elig ibility of a Person to gratuity upon his receive Pension or superannuation. In this case, this Court finds that the respondents are not denying the eligibilitY of the petitioner to the retirements benefits such as gratu ity, leave encashment and Pension but are only saying that the Petitioner is eligible for such tion i.e., benefits from its Parent organiza respo ndent No.6. Admittedly, the respondent No.6 is financiallY weak and after the bifurcation of the States into Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the k n n e al ne e f r 6 name of the petitioner has not been inclu ded in the list of employees of respondent No.6 for allocation to the respective States. Admittedl y, his name has been considered as a Government servant. At this stage, the respondents cannot ta ke a stand that petitioner is only an emplo yee of respondent No.6 and therefore retirement benefits have to be settled by respondent No.6 alone. This stand of respondents is not sL.r stainable. Therefore, o n r I A1 f h u H M- II o17

7. Th rel van Me N 8 42- 3

22.07.2 !7 se a dh reu "5. In this context, all depa rtments/District Collectors are informed that Government have issued detailed guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMPC) Oepaitrenf JateO 09.0.1.2002 for redeployment and absorption of surplus .work-charged establishment and surptus staFf in different categories of posts in Coveinment Departments into existing vacancies of other departments and also the powers were OetejateO to District Collectors for deployment of -iuch resources.in the categories lower than zonal, multi zonal and state cadre posts. These orders are obviously not applicable to aOsorpiion oF employees in public Sector Undertakings, Societies, or other orga n izations/bodies ,n0". Government departments. Oectarin! the employees oF Ap State Co_operative #rigation 7 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 abinitio.

6. Therefore, such orders, if any, issued by the depa rtments/District Collectors allotting surplus employees from AP State Co-operative Irrigation Corporation Limited or similar public sec[or 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 7997, and hence null and void ab initio' 7. Hence all the Departments and the District Collectors concerned are instructed to cancel such orders if any issued and repatriate such persons to their parent organizations immediately, besides initiating disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officials in ferms of section 6 of Act 2 of 1994 and also recover the loss occurred to the Government due to such illegal appointments, after duly fixing the responsibility for such illegal orders. B. It is also clarified that such persons of public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations / bodies etc., who were absorbed into Government Departments in violation of the orders issued G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (SMPC) Department dated:09.01.2002 and the provisions of Act 2 of !994 and also Act 14 of L997 are not eligible for any benefits such as pension, gratuity, commutation of pension and compassionate appointments etc., on par with the Government employees in Government Departments' Such employees are eligible only for the benefits which are available in their parent organizations and such 8 benefits have to be orga nizations only. paid by their parent

9. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the Director of Works Accounts and the pay and Accounts Officer, Hyderabad shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the responsible officers/staif For admitting the bills in violation of the Section-5 of Act 2 of t994.,,

8. The relevant Dortion of the i DUOn d Circ lar No.1206/476t AL/H RM-VIT/ 20L7, d ted Memo t3.1o.20L7 is extracted here u nder: All the Heads are directed of Departments/District "4. to return the service Collectors 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 7994 and Act 74 of 1997, to their parent Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organ izations/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 bills of the surplus employees of Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations / bodies etc., who were deployed/a llotted 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 9 Th rel o ron r.e. No 2o he m nto h Co L32 tn "Devi Multiolex and 15 c nother Vs. state of G iarat and othe rs extractedhe reund er: "22. We find nothing in the present case on the basis of which there could possibly be room to iay that it would be inequitable to ho-ld-th^e State Government to its promise' Out of 108 TRCs iriu"O ,n0". the Scheme, the burden that the Cou"tnr"nt was well aware and thought that it could comfortably bear, only 19 or 20 units have been established and are functional' In any case' if,e impact of incentives so offered under the Scheme and the consequential burden must have been weighed carefully when such promise was maoe ani the Scheme was formed' We may i"ip".tirfry refer to the following observations of tnit Coutt'in S.V.A. Steel Re-Rolling Mills Lld' v' itale or Kerala [(2014) 4 SCC 186] to which one oi us fnnif R. Dave, J.) was a party: (SCC p' 194' para 30) n -30 B fore lavinodo wn s !d su biects. theS te must thtnk about li whi h n n e a lev nt D Der ADD ciat onof all the should not qivea nv fa ors, the Sta as urance, notonlv because that wo uld o o b nfair and IM ora! on the art of th e n Ii I e." R t u s e 10 rsc ssr N ND ON SUI N

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 2O21 had been filed by one T.Jogal Reddy and this Court disposed of the said Writ petition vide its order, dated 04.06.2(J24 directing the respondent Nos.1 to s thereunder to treat the petitioner thereunder as a Government Servant i.e., the employee of respondent No.3 thereunder i.€., the District Collector, Rangareddy District and settte the retirement benefits of the petitioner there under such as Gratuity, encashment of leave, pension etc., in accordance with rules, expeditiousty, 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 counset appearing on behalf of the respondents also does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the present writ petition courd be 11 disposed of in similar lines as per order' dated 04.06.2C,24 passed in W.P'No'277L9 ol 2O21 (referred to and extracted above). L2. It is howev rpe rtinent to brin oon reco of her ffid vit d n No th e sameis extra cted hereunder:- " I submit that subsequent to the filing of the Writ p"tition, we have acquired information with regard to p"niionurV benefits being granted to similarly.placed through Right to Information Act, 200s and ;;;;t lro infor.utidn with regard to surplus employees of erstwhile APSRIC being absorbed in . various gor".n*"nt departments on permanent basis' I iubmit that we are now filing the said documents as nAJitionaf Material Papers in the Writ Petition' inur"fo.", we are filing this petition to receive the following as Additional Material papers' Description of the Documen t S!.No. 1 2 3 4 Copy of the Letter No.B/ASP/V class/2020, dated

09.09.2020 A2 lRrI/t3412020, dated Copy of the Letter No. 74.O9.2020 Copy of the Letter No.C2 lRTt/462/2020, dated 24.O9.2020 Copy of the Letter No.1 t O/tq o/nOC/n dmn / 2o2o - 2 2r, d ated 05.10.2020 1,2

13. A bare perusa! of the above referred materia! documents fited by the petitioners in support of 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 similar benefit as per law.

14. Taki nq into con sideration: 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 counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The contents of the impugned Circular Memo No.8242- A / 3 29 / AL / HRM-vrt / 20 t7, 22.07.2OL7 (referred to and extracted above) 13 d) The contents of the impugned Circular Memo No.L2OG / 47 6 I AL / HRM-vll/ 2017, dated L3.LO.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:- a) 2023 (1) ALD 387 (TS) ii) The order of this Court, dated 04-06.2O24 passed in W.P.No.277Lg of 2O2L. iii) 201s (9) scc 132 f) The specific averments made in 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., letters, dated Og.Og.2O2O, 24.O9.2O2O, 05. 10. 2O2O and 24.O9.2O2O (referred to and extracted above). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to representations of the petitioners consider the addressed to the respondents pertaining to the request of the petitioners for issuance of appropriate orders for payment of retirement benefits namely 1,4 pension, gratuity , arrears of PRC, Group Insurance claims and DA arrears from January, 2OL7 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 natural justice, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2O15 (9) SCa 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 impugned Circutar Memo No.g242- A/329 / A[/HRM-VII/2O17, dated 22.07.2OL7 and the impugned Circular Memo No.t2O6/476/At/HRt4- VII/2OL7, dated 13.1O.2OL7, within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and duly communicate the decision on the petitioners' representations to the petitioners herein.

15. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The 15 respondent Nos.4 to 6 are further directed to consider the request of the petitioners for payment of salaries to the petitioners with all consequential benefits in accordance to law without reference to- circular Memo No.824 2-Al 32g / AL / HRM-V II / 20 LT,dated 22'07'2O t7 and the impugned circular Memo'No'1206/476/ Al /HRM VII/2O17, dated L3'LO'2OL7' As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any' pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed' SD/.V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR NOTE: That the following lines "The respondent Nos'4 io-6 are further directed to consider the request of the iltition"tt for payment of salaries to the petitioners wittr alt Consequdntial benefits in accordance to law wittrort reference to circular memo no' 8242' alizslarlHnlu-vll/2017, Dated 22.07-2017 and the i-t*n"a circular Memo No.1206/476/A1/HRMVlll2o17' i"i"dr r.t o.zo 17". are incorporated As para no'15 of the order, dated 24.03.2025 Passed in WP'NO' 36464/2018 as p.iifi. orders Of the Hon'ble Court dated o1'o7 '2025 in tA.NO.1/2025. This amended order shall substituted the Earlier order, which has already been dispatched On 10i06/2025 NOTE: That the Amended order dated 011O712025 in i.a.rlo.r oF 2025 IN wP.No.3646412o18 was not carried the Judgment dated 2410312025 in o"i WP.NO.36464/18 and the Same has been carried out suo motto. SD/-V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// SD/.V. KAVITHA UTY REGIST ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, finance Department, Secretariat Buildings' z. ifie 3. The District Collector, Jangaon, Jangaon ulstnct- Collector, Warangal Urban, W-arangal District' Hvderabad. -OGtrici i I

5. The Deputv District Treasury Offrcer, Jangaon, Jangaon District. t [[:r[iOr,, Direcror, Distncr ireasuries Oftice, vvarangat Urban, Warangat li""d;';i*t treasury onii"i oiiiii""EJ6ilbl.,i,, station 6nanpur Labour, Regional Director office, sration chanpur, ' ,""f#1""8[missioner 8. The Revenue Divisional Officer,. Station Ghanpur, Jangaon District. e. The Director of Treasuries ;"4 h;".r;;iltEiJnd"nr, Hyderabad i 0. The Tetanqana State Cooperative Rriir'iiriigiii"r,; corporation Limired ff B:"..,,TiXgI5.,1xSffi :ht:t":f i: j.,;iir:,1.ifi ;;;:,iih.i,q,,bi"duun, '11. one cc to srvr r. xrmiN'nunvreioJJJJt!-iopuct 1 2 rworccs ro Gp FoR se nvrdeslluE; d;;tEr t e,stare of reransana 13. Two CD Cooies KKS BS ,.1b I CC TODAY r {. I I HIGH COURT DATED:24t03t2025 01t07t2025 i I I i I ) )(( 1 l{F- S'f ^-.\ .{r€- t' ) r-) 12 tlJE 2025 z C) Da- t AMENDED ORDER WP.No.36464 of 2018 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @C*'' g-2.-- 6cvr