Telangana High Court
B.Vara Laxmi vs State Of Telangana on 23 April, 2024
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.35077 of 2023
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble SP,J) Background and Stand of Petitioners:
This matter has a chequered history. The pensioners have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of the Courts. However, till today, they have not received complete retiral dues.
2. The petitioners (11 in number) were appointed in different posts in erstwhile Telugu Akademi. They retired on attaining the age of superannuation on various dates after 02.06.2014 (appointed day). The States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh were bifurcated on the appointed day pursuant to Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014 (for short, the Act of 2014).
3. W.P.No.21366 of 2020 was filed before this Court seeking appropriate directions for grant of pension and other benefits. A Division Bench of this Court on 22.01.2021 directed as under:
"c) the 7th and 10th respondents shall discuss with each other and agree on the modalities/guidelines for allocation of employees of the 7th respondent as on 02.06.2014 including the petitioners within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and then allocate the employees as per the said norms within one (01) month of finalization of modalities/guidelines.2
SP,J & NTR,J Wp_35077_2023
d) the assets and liabilities of the 7th respondent as on 02.06.2014 shall be apportioned between the 10th respondent and the 7th respondent as per proviso to Section 53(1) of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 in the ratio 58.32 : 41.68 within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
(Emphasis Supplied)
4. The State of Telangana and others filed SLP (C) No.4268 of 2021 against the order passed in W.P.No.21366 of 2020. On 22.03.2021, the Apex Court ordered as under:
"4. Presently, we are not inclined to stay the operation of the directions of the High Court. In the meantime, in implementation of the directions contained in operative clause (c) in paragraph 53 of the judgment of the High Court, we direct the parties to take steps before the next date of listing by convening meetings for effectuating the apportionment as directed by the High Court."
5. In furtherance of above order of the Apex Court, respondent Nos.7 and 10 entered into an agreement formulating modalities regarding allocation of posts, employees and apportionment of bank balances and pension funds on 18.08.2021. In continuance of said agreement, admittedly petitioner Nos.1 to 11 were allocated to State of Telangana and petitioner Nos.12 to 14 were allocated to State of Andhra Pradesh.
6. In relation to petitioners who retired after the appointed day, it was agreed in the agreement dated 18.08.2021 that respective states shall bear the pension liability based on their local 3 SP,J & NTR,J Wp_35077_2023 candidature/nativity. The relevant portion of the said agreement reads thus:
"In respect of the Pensioners arrived after 02-06-2014, the respective States shall bear the Pensions directly to the Pensioners based on their local candidature. The list of Pensioners arrived after 02-06-2014 is enclosed at Annexure-V."
7. On 05.09.2021, respondent No.7 filed an additional affidavit before the Apex Court and brought the agreement dated 18.08.2021 on record, wherein it was stated that the process of implementation of same has already been initiated. The Apex Court passed an order dated 14.09.2021 directing implementation of agreement dated 18.08.2021 within two weeks. Thereafter, respondent No.7 initiated proceedings implementing the modalities formulated in the agreement dated 18.08.2021 regarding allocation of posts, employees and apportionment of bank balance and pension funds.
8. On 01.05.2022, the Telugu Akademi was bifurcated between both the states. The State of Telangana had unconditionally withdrawn SLP (C) No.4268 of 2021 filed by it. Respondent No.7 accordingly issued proceedings transferring the withheld amount to respondent No.10 as per the agreement dated 18.08.2021 by proceedings dated 13.05.2022. As per the agreement dated 18.08.2021, respondent No.7 had to pay full pension to petitioner Nos.1 to 11 because they were allocated to State of Telangana, 4 SP,J & NTR,J Wp_35077_2023 whereas respondent No.10 had to pay full pension to petitioner Nos.12 to 15 as they were allocated to State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 01.05.2022.
9. Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that aggrieved petitioners preferred umpteen number of representations to respondent Nos.7 and 10 to pay them full pension. Since all such representations went in vain, they were constrained to file the present petition. He further submits that the petitioners are senior citizens and suffering from various age related ailments. They need to spend huge amount towards treatment and for taking care of their spouse. In absence of full payment of pension, in the present days of price hike, it is difficult for them to keep their body and soul together. It is pointed out that spouses of some of the petitioners suffered heart-attack and they are taking costly treatment. He further submits that the petitioners are also unable to pay their EMIs to the banks for the loans obtained by them. The pension is a valuable right of the petitioners and respondents have erred in not paying the same to the petitioners and thus, necessary directions may be issued.
Response of Respondent No.7:
10. The stand of respondent No.7 (State of Telangana) is that a joint mechanism is worked out in consultation with Andhra Pradesh 5 SP,J & NTR,J Wp_35077_2023 Telugu Akademi by issuing letter dated 11.07.2022. So far payment of pension from 01.05.2022 is concerned, a joint mechanism was decided to be worked out in consultation with Andhra Pradesh Telugu Akademi for adjustment of expenditure of pension and pensionary benefits every month between two Academies as per the Eight Schedule of the Act of 2014 and G.O.Ms.No.122, dated 22.05.2014.
11. In para 9 of the counter, it was admitted that respondent No.7 has to pay full pension to petitioner Nos.1 to 11 as they were allocated to State of Telangana and respondent No.10 has to pay full pension to petitioner Nos.12 to 15 as they were allocated to State of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent No.7 further urged that its liability is 41.68% even though employees allocated to State of Telangana as well as the employees who were allocated to Andhra Pradesh. The remaining part of pension has to be borne by respondent No.10 (State of Andhra Pradesh).
Response of Respondent No.10:
12. Respondent No.10 in its counter stated that minutes dated 18.08.2021 show that after appointed day, the concerned State Academies shall bear the pension liability as per the local candidature. Accordingly, Andhra Pradesh Telugu Akademi vide letter dated 02.06.2023 requested Telangana Telugu Akademi to 6 SP,J & NTR,J Wp_35077_2023 furnish the fixation files and service registers of Andhra Pradesh nativity pensioners to enable Andhra Pradesh Telugu Akademi to pay its 100% pension liability as per the rules w.e.f. 01.05.2022. Instead of submitting the said details, the Director of Telangana Telugu Akademi, vide letter dated 16.09.2023, requested the Director of Andhra Pradesh Telugu Akademi to give consent for revision of earlier agreement dated 18.08.2021 and for entering into MoU for payment of pension to petitioners as per the Eighth Schedule of the Act of 2014 and G.O.Ms.No.122, dated 22.05.2014 and recoupment of Andhra Pradesh's share of pension paid by them from 02.06.2014 to 30.04.2022.
13. The procedure is laid down in G.O.Ms.No.122, dated 22.05.2014, to show that in respect of the employees who retired after the appointed day, the successor State shall bear the portion of the pension and pensionary benefits attributable to his service in that successor state after the appointed day. In para 9 of the counter, it was clearly averred that agreement dated 18.08.2021 is binding on both the Academies and Andhra Pradesh Telugu Akademi is willing to pay pension to petitioner Nos.12 to 15 who were allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh from 01.05.2022. In similar lines, respondent No.7 must pay full pension to petitioner Nos.1 to 11 as they were allocated to State of Telangana.7
SP,J & NTR,J Wp_35077_2023
14. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on rival contentions and perused the record.
FINDINGS:
15. Before dealing with rival contentions, it is apt to mention that it is trite that pension is not a bounty. The employee gets pension because of his long services rendered to the Department. The Apex Court on different occasions had considered the scope and ambit of property. In Madhav Rao Scindia Vs. Union of India 1, opined that Prievy Purse payable to ex-rulers is property. In Nagraj, K v. State of A.P. 2, Apex Court opined that right of person to his livelihood is property which is subject to rules of retirement. In State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan 3, the Apex Court opined that right of pension is property under the Government service Rules. In Madhav Rao Scindia Vs. State of M.P. 4 and State of M.P. Vs. Ranojirao 5, the Apex Court opined that property in the context of Article 300-A includes 'money', salary which has accrued pension, and cash grants annually payable by the Government; pension due under Government Service Rules; a right to bonus and other sums due to employees under statute. This view was also taken in the case 1 AIR 1971 SC 530 2 AIR 1985 SC 533 3 AIR 1985 SC 356 4 AIR 1961 SC 298 5 AIR 1968 SC 1053 8 SP,J & NTR,J Wp_35077_2023 reported in AIR 1971 SC 1409 (Deokinandan Vs. State of Bihar). Bombay High Court in the case reported in (2012) 3 Mah.L.J 126 (Shapoor M. Mehra Vs. Allahabad Bank) opined that retiral benefits including pension and gratuity constitute a valuable right in property. In Deokinandan (supra) Apex Court opined as under:
"(i) The right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no powers to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable."
16. In view of settled legal position, there is no manner of doubt that the petitioners are entitled to get pension and retiral benefits dues from the respondents. It is equally settled that in certain situations, which are admittedly not available in the present case, the pension can be stopped only in accordance with the relevant pension rules. It is nobody's case that any such circumstance is available in the instant case which can deprive the petitioners from the fruits of pension.
17. Respondent Nos.7 and 10 have taken different stands regarding the question of liability on their part to pay the pension to the petitioners. As noticed above, respondent No.10 candidly stated 9 SP,J & NTR,J Wp_35077_2023 that it is willing to pay pension to petitioner Nos.12 to 15 who are allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh from 01.05.2022. Respondent No.7 has raised eyebrows on the stand of respondent No.10 by taking shelter under the Tenth Schedule (Entry-51) of the Act of 2014 and urged that there has to be an apportionment of pension between the two States. Pausing here for a moment, we are inclined to observe that this Court is not examining the rival claims of respondent Nos.7 and 10 regarding their liability. Instead, this Court is concerned with the claim of the petitioners regarding grant of pension from the respondents. It is a sorry state of affair that despite making a statement before the Apex Court, till today, the full pension has not been paid to the petitioners.
18. The Apex Court, on 22.03.2021, issued notices and did not grant any interim relief to the appellants therein. Instead, it was directed to implement the operative clause (c) of para 53 of judgment of this Court passed in W.P.No.21366 of 2020. The respondents should have implemented the said direction with quite promptitude. On 14.09.2021, the Apex Court considered the proceedings of two meetings held between the States on 13.08.2021 and 18.08.2021 and recorded as under:
"1. Pursuant to the last listing of these proceedings on 22 March 2021, an additional affidavit has been filed by the Director, Telugu Akademi on behalf of the fifth petitioner. The affidavit indicates 10 SP,J & NTR,J Wp_35077_2023 that two meetings were convened by the Telugu Akademi, Telangana at the office of the Director, Telugu Akademi, Andhra Pradesh Telugu Akademi Society and at the Telugu Akademi Telangana, Himayatnagar Campus. In the first meeting held on 13 August 2021, both the Directors resolved to appoint Auditors for the certification of funds and to certify the ratio of 53.32 : 41.68 as on 2 June 2014 to be divided between A.P. Telugu Akademi Society and Telugu Akademi Telangana in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. A decision was also taken to certify the sanctioned posts, working strength and vacancies by both the Directors according to the cadre strength as on 2 June 2014 along with existing pensioners. The affidavit states that at a second meeting held on 18 August 021, resolutions have been agreed upon in regard to:
(i) Allocation of posts;
(ii) Allocation of employees; and
(iii) Apportionment of bank balances and pension funds.
2. During the Course of the hearing, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, states, on instructions, that necessary steps for implementing the above resolutions, including for the disbursement of bank balances and funds, as apportioned, shall be taken within a period of two weeks from today. This exercise shall, in terms of the statement made before this court, be completed within a period of two weeks.
3. As regards the bifurcation of assets, Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan seeks a further opportunity to place relevant material on the record.
4. It may be noted that Mr. K. V. Viswanathan, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has, on the issue of bifurcation of assets, relied upon a decision rendered by this Court 11 SP,J & NTR,J Wp_35077_2023 on 18 March 2016 in Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil appeal Nos.3019-3020 of 2016, Annexure P-8 of the paper book), particularly paragraph 24 and 25."
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. The matter was then directed to be listed by the Apex Court on 06.10.2021. Ultimately, the matter came up for hearing on 29.04.2022. The Supreme Court reiterated its previous order dated 14.09.2021 (supra) and recorded as under:
"3. The statement which has been made before this Court on behalf of the State of Telangana, recorded in paragraph 2 of the order, must be duly fulfilled. An amount of Rs.92,94,04,216.90 has been transferred by the petitioners in pursuance of the statement which was made on 14 September 2021. The balance shall be paid as set out below.
4. Mr. K. V. Vishwanathan, senior counsel, submits that interest should be directed to be paid from the appointed date.
5. The petitioners shall, within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, transfer the balance which has been withheld, together with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. In the facts and circumstances, interest shall be payable with effect from the date of the judgment of the High Court.
6. Since the Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the High Court is being unconditionally withdrawn by the petitioners, all parties shall necessarily be bound by the judgment of the High Court and action in compliance shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of this order.12
SP,J & NTR,J Wp_35077_2023
7. The Special Leave Petition shall accordingly stand disposed of as withdrawn."
(Emphasis Supplied)
20. A plain reading of para 3 of the above order makes it clear that statement/undertaking given before the Apex Court and recorded in para 2 of the order was required to be strictly fulfilled. In para 5, in clear terms, it was directed that the petitioners shall, within two weeks from 29.04.2022, transfer the balance amount which was withheld together with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. However, it was clarified that interest shall be payable from the date of judgment of High Court i.e., 22.01.2021.
21. A combined reading of order dated 14.09.2021 and 29.04.2022 makes it clear like noon day that the Apex Court directed to comply with the statement which has been made before it by the State of Telangana and reduced it into writing in para 2 of the order. The State of Telangana has unconditionally withdrawn its SLP. Thus, it is no more open to the State of Telangana to take a different stand and defend its inaction on the basis of other grounds. The undertaking/statement given by respondent No.7 before the Apex Court became part of the direction and foundation of order of the Apex Court dated 29.04.2022. Respondent No.7 cannot travel 13 SP,J & NTR,J Wp_35077_2023 beyond or behind this statement by taking shelter of Section 59 or the Eighth Schedule of the Act of 2014.
22. As a result, the petitioners deserve to succeed. Respondent Nos.7 and 10 are directed to comply with the statement made before the Apex Court, as mentioned hereinabove, and forthwith complete the formalities on their part. The service record and relevant registers, etc., of the employees allocated to other state should be transferred to the respective Akademies forthwith but not beyond fifteen (15) days from today to enable the other Akademi to work out the pension and pay the same to the retired employees. The pension of the petitioners be recalculated and paid to them by deducting the pension already paid, within two (2) weeks therefrom. In view of order of the Apex Court, the petitioners who are in December of their life, are entitled to get six per cent interest on delayed payment of arrears of pension. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, where senior citizens are compelled to file this avoidable piece of litigation, respondent Nos.7 and 10 are directed to file compliance report of this order before the Registrar (Judicial-I) of this Court on or before 24.06.2024. The Registrar (Judicial-I) shall list this matter only for the purpose of ensuring compliance on 27.06.2024. 14
SP,J & NTR,J Wp_35077_2023
23. The Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________ SUJOY PAUL, J __________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 23.04.2024 TJMR