V V B Rajasekhara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9919 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9919 AP
Judgement Date : 30 December, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

V V B Rajasekhara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December, 2022

Bench: K Manmadha Rao

                                         1




       THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                  WRIT PETITION (A.T) No.248 of 2022

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief:

".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction to call for the records relating to the present impugned proceedings No. 290587/CRDA/2017, dated 29.11.2017 of the 1st respondent and consequential endorsement Rc.No.2109/2017, Estt, dated 09.01.2018 of the 2nd respondent and set aside or quash the same by further holding that the entire action of the respondents in not considering the genuine claim of the petitioners at least for extending the benefit of past service rendered by the petitioners from 25.11.1993 onwards for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits despite of rendering regular service since 1986 onwards is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colourable, exercise of power discriminatory violative of all principles of natural justice and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between B. Srinivasulu Vs. the Nellore Municipal Corporation in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015 including recent judgment of the hon'ble High Court and consequently to hold that the petitioners herein are entitled for reckoning of their past service at least from 25.11.1993 onwards for the purpose of pension pand pensionary benefits including fixation of notional pay and seniority and pass such other orders."

2. Heard Mr. S. Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners and learned Government Pleader, Services-IV for the

respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were

appointed as Work Inspectors on NMR basis through employment

exchange in A.P.CRDA. While the matter stood thus, on

completion of five years of regular service, the Vice Chairman

VGTM UDA issued proceedings dated 08.04.1992 in pursuance of

Resolution No. 248, dated 08.04.1992, wherein the benefit of

minimum time scale of pay extended attached to the post with

usual allowances. Subsequently taking into consideration of their

regular service, the time scale of pay has been enhanced from time

to time by extending revised pay scales from 1992 onwards

including subsequent PRC benefits like regular employees. The

petitioners were working as Work Inspectors with effect from

13.10.1986 and 18.10.1986 in 2nd respondent organization. But

unfortunately their services were regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.597,

dated 29.08.2008 with prospective effect, instead of regularizing

their services with effect from the day, on which they completed

five years of service. Due to such prospective regularization the

petitioners are losing their pension and pensionary benefits.

Therefore the petitioners made representations to the 2nd

respondent, but without considering the request of the

respondents, unreasonably passed the impugned order dated

29.11.2017 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to take

necessary action. Pursuant to the same, the 2nd respondent issued

consequential impugned endorsement dated 09.01.2018, which is

illegal and arbitrary. Hence inaction of the respondents is

questioned in the writ petition.

4. Counter-affidavit not filed.

5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterated the contents urged in the writ petition and placed on

record the G.O.Rt.No.122, Municipal Administration & Urban

Development (G1) Department, dated 22.03.2021, wherein it is

stated as follows:

"4. Government after careful examination the matter hereby regularize the services of Sri P.Kamalakar and 54 others, who are applicants in O.A.No.2716 of 2018 worked earlier as NMR's in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation with effect from 25.11.1993 onwards in the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits only as per the direction of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 13.12.2018".

Further, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record

the order of this Court "The State of Andhra Pradesh, School

Education Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District &

Another Vs. L.B.M.Krishna"1 wherein learned Division Bench of

this Court held as follows:

"8. .......

4). Learned counsel for the State contended that the post of Section Writer was not a pensionable post and it became a pensionable post only with effect from 1-10-1970 and, therefore, the entire period of service rendered by the respondent on this post prior to 1-10-1970 would have to be excluded. This was not the contention raised before the Tribunal nor has any rule to that effect been shown to us that the post of Section Writer was a

2020(2) ALT 381 = 2020(6) Andh LD 349

non-pensionable post up to 1-10-1970. We, therefore, cannot accept this contention.

5). In view of the above, the appeal has no merits and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs".

9. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in State of Andhra Pradesh V. M. Raja Rao, order dated 17.03.2016 in W.P.No.8201 of 2016 and also the Karnataka High Court in B.H.Mahadevappa V. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., 2

10. In view of the judgments of the Apex Court and other High Courts referred to above, we are of the view that the past service of the applicant, who is the respondent herein, prior to his regulation, has to be considered for the purpose of pensionary benefits."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision

of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33936 of 2011

and batch, dated 02.05.2018, wherein the same view to that of the

Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the same

subject matter, wherein while disposing the batch of writ petitions,

directed to the respondents therein to extend the benefit of

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "B. Srinivasulu

Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation"3 , wherein it was held as

follows:

"On the above analysis, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B. Srinivasulu's case, to the employees in this batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service on or before 25.11.1993, for the purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits".

ILR 2006 Kar 3405

Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015

7. In view of the above said circumstances and following the

decisions cited supra, this Court is allowing the Writ Petition,

while directing the respondents to count the earlier service of the

petitioner rendered from 25.11.1993 for the purpose of pension

and pensionary benefits including fixation of notional pay and

seniority within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. Further the impugned proceedings

dated 29.11.2017 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential

endorsement dated 09.01.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent is

declared as illegal, arbitrary and same is hereby set aside.