High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK NNO : 3670 WRI TPE TITIO 50F 2018 8,Y"t#ruf, '4,.*,1"*tJ'Y;Yil1lll"sq Road,rainaka,s".i,ril,r:oio",unehapuri"rflt"?la:""rJRLr:B:r::;:.,1#l ...PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Tela :tit'f fl "fift1}!"8"o'1iffi . il! id'r"rtjK#."?il"'"'""pment ._,. r ne Ac@untant General (A and E), A.p. and Telangana, Hyderabad "'i'5i,.S:[i,1,1",,1r".;;",;#,"g"3"3,t*..,.i,1: a nd ch ird werra re Depa rtment, Ameerpet, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to decra-re the impugned action of the respondents in failing to rectify the erroneous fixation of service pension at Rs 36'542r instead of Rs'3g,455A as iregar, arbitrary and the one causing huge financial loss and .*t"l ,gony and consequen,y direct the respondents to take all those immediate necessary steps to pass IA NO: 10 F 2018 I Petition under section 'r 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to spass appropriate proceedings rectifying the erroneous fixation of basic service pension duly fixing the same @ Rs.39,4556 with all attendant benefits such as difference of commuted value pension, gratuity etc., duly disposing of 12t0512017 of the petitioner' pending disposal of writ representation dated petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' K' RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHTLD WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITIONN o.3 67os of2o18 Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in failing to rectify the erroneous fixation of service pension at Rs.36,642 /_ instead of Rs.39,aS5/-, and seeking a direction to the respondents to fix the service pension at Rs.39,455/_ with all consequential benefits, the present i.l,rit petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri K_ Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counse_l for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner \.as promoted as Assistant Director vide proceedings dated 19.O8.2015 in an existing vacancy, after following due the procedure lor effecting promotions that included conducting a DpC and approving her name in the DpC. Consequen y, her pay was lixed at Rs.78,910/- in the scale of pay of Rs.37, 1OO_91,4SO vide proceedings dated 09.10.2ors. while so, the petitioner had retired from service on 31.08.20 15 and her pension proposals were accordingly submitted by the office of respondent No.2 as per the procedure in vogue, wherein, a ) PK' J w.P.No.3670S of 2018 AS her service Pension r"'as proPosed Rs.39,455/ -, among other However, clespite the same ' on receiving the penston things .2, respondent No 3' in a unilateral and proposals from resPondent No erroneous manner, fixed her service pension as Rs.36,6421' AS against the proposed amounL of Rs'39'455/- vidc proceedings in letter dated 02.03.2016, by carculating her pension on the basis of the instead of her last average emoluments' computed aL Rs'73 '2821- drawn pay at Rs-78'91O/- Further' in the remarks column of the said proceedings, it was stated ' "It moA be stated uhether she u'tas promoted' rugoilzst clear uaconcg or regular uacancA lf so' the same mog be noted in SB under proper attestation and sent to this office for reuision. At presen't, AE is taken for PBS " It was further submitted that a reply was sent to respondent 4. . No.3 by respondent No'2, stating lhat promotion of the offrccr was in a leave vacancy. However, the said information is ex facie incorrect' as the petitioner's promotion was in an existing vacancy' which was also clearly stated in the proceedings dated 19 08 2015' However' it appears that only her posting on promotion was in a leave vacancy' As such, respondent No.2 ought to have clarihed to respondent No'3 that rrer promotion was against an existing vacancy only. It waS further submittcd that the petitioner,s pay that was fixed on her i 1 l i I I 5 PK, J W.P.No.367O5 of 2018

6. It was furlher submitted that the petitioner,s promotion was against a leave vacancy vide proceedings dated 19.0g.2015, which was also noted in the Serwice Register (revised promotion entry) under proper attestation. Further, in the promotion proceedings, it was wrongly mentioned as existing vacancy, instead of mentioning leave vacancy, ar-rd mere issuance of proceedings mentioning existing vacancy, does not confer any right to claim the benefits of existing vacancy when it is a clear fact that the petitioner was promoted in a leave vacancy. It was further submitted that the service pension of employees is computed on the basis of their last pay drawn. In the case of the petitioner, as her promotion was in a leave vacancy, respondent No.3 has calculated the pension of the basis of the average emoluments and not on las[ pay drawn basis, and hxed the pension at Rs.36,642 I - as against the proposed amount of Rs.39,455/-. It was further submitted that along with the petitioner,s representation dated 72.OT.2O17, a copy of the proceedings dated

19.08.2015 was enclosed, wherein, it was shown as existing vacancy, but on verification of service register of the individual, it was noticed that thc promotion cntry was noted as existing vacancy by self_ attestation of the retired ofhcer. Therefore, the petitioner,s promotion as Assistant Director was duly counted to be in a leavc vacancy, I 5 PK, .] W.P.No 36705 of 2018 which was also taken note of by respondent No.3 authorities while hxing her pension at Rs.36,642/-. Hence, re hxation of basic service pension was not done by the Accountant Cieneral authorities. Therefore, it was submitted that there are no merils in the present case, and thus, prayed to dismrss the present writ petition.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds that the main grievance of the petitioner pertains to the computation of her basic service pension based on her average emoluments instead of her last drann pay. According to the petitroner, she was promoted to the post ol Assistant Director vide proceedings dated 19.08.2015, in an exisling vacancy and her last drawn pay in the promoted post was Rs.78,910/-, based on which, the service pension was proposed at Rs.39,455/,. l{orvcver, the said proposed pension was reduced to Rs.36,642/- by respondent No.3, on the premise that she was promoted in a leave vacancy. Further, admittedly, the petitioner has already submittecl a detailed representation dated 12.05.2O17, requesting re fixation of her basic service pension, which rs still pending consideration before respondent No.2. 7 PK, ,] W.P.No.367O5 of 2018

8. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct respondent No.2 is to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.O5.2OI7 and take a decision with regard to the eligi bility/ entitlement of the petitioner for re-fixation of her basic gervicc pension at Rs.39,455/ , duly passing appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with larv, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (O6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. 9 With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Women, Chlldren, Disabled and Senior Citizens (Estt.) Dedartment, Telangana Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad - 5OO 022 Z. The Direcior, Women Dev:elopment and Child Welfare Department, Ameepet, Telangana State, Hyderabad

3. The Atcountant Geheral (A and E), A.P. and Telangana, Hyderabad 4. One CC to SRl. K. RA[/ REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies OBM KS HIGH COURT DATED:1910612025 ORDER WP.No.36705 of 2018 " p.i [E-..i t) 4 -31Jl,t2[25 (i, ,: i '\ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS L