Telangana High Court
G.Prabhakara Rao, Hyd vs Hc Of Judicature At Hyd, Hyd 3 ... on 14 June, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.29128 of 2015
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present case stands concluded
on account of the judgment delivered in W.P.No.18901 of
2015 and batch, dated 27.04.2021.
The operative portion of the judgment passed in
W.P.No.18901 of 2015 and batch, dated 27.04.2021, reads
as under:-
"100. The Proviso to the Sub-section (2) of Section
3A, however, gives the benefit of notional service for
the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits in
respect of those employees who attained the age of
60 years before the final allotment to the State of
Andhra Pradesh, by taking into account the service
rendered in the State of Telangana till the dates of
their retirement.
101. By virtue of this provision, we hold that the
petitioners can be granted better pensionary
benefits, subject to what is stated below, because
these Writ petitions were all filed before each of the
2
petitioners attained the age of 58 years of service in
2015, in view of the interim orders passed therein
that retirement of each of the petitioners shall be
subject further orders to be passed in the Writ
Petitions.
102. The said benefit shall be confined to only the
petitioners in these cases who had not got any
extension of service or otherwise continued in
service upto 60 years for any reason in the High
Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and
the State of Andhra Pradesh prior to 1.1.2019.
103. The said benefit cannot also be extended to
other employees of the High Court at Hyderabad for
the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh who were in service between 2.6.2014 and
1.
1.2019 and who have not filed any cases in this
Court like the petitioners in these cases.
104. We accordingly direct that petitioners (other
than those mentioned in para 102 and 103 above)
shall be notionally deemed to have rendered service
till they attained the age of 60 years in the High
Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh
at Amaravati, and the said notional service shall be
taken into account for the purpose of calculation of
their pensionary benefits by virtue of proviso to
sub-section (2) of Section 3-A of the A.P. Public
Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation)
Act, 1984 as amended by Act 4 of 2014; and The
State of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi shall calculate the
said benefits and pay the same to the petitioners
within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of the order.
105. We direct the High Court of Telangana to
forward the service records of the petitioners to the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi at the
earliest.
106. We direct that the High Court of Telangana
and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi shall each pay to each of the petitioners
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards
costs within 4 weeks for the manner in which the
petitioners were denied their right to exercise
options in the Guidelines dt.1.11.2018 published
by the common High Court at Hyderabad for both
the state of Telangana and the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh.
107. These Writ Petitions are allowed to the above
limited extent with the above directions.
108. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending
if any, shall stand closed."
Learned counsel for the High Court has also stated
that the controversy involved in the present case stands
concluded on account of the aforesaid judgment.
Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed.
The judgment delivered in W.P.No.18901 of 2015 and
batch, dated 27.04.2021, shall be applicable mutatis
mutandis in the present case also.
Let a copy of the order passed by this Court in
W.P.No.18901 of 2015 and batch, dated 27.04.2021, be
kept on record in the present case.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
14.06.2022
vs
