Telangana High Court

Smt. B.Sugandha vs The State Of Telangana on 27 October, 2022

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                   W.P. NO. 22076 OF 2020

ORDER:

Heard the Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned

Government Pleader for School Education.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ, order or

direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus by declaring the entire action of the respondents,

particularly the entire action of the 1st respondent in issuing

the present impugned order vide Memo

No.575/Ser.II/A1/2015, dated 08.09.2020 wherein rejecting

the genuine request of the petitioner including

recommendations of the 2nd and 3rd respondents for

condoning the EOL period for one year five months 27 days

which is short fall of qualifying services of 20 years for

voluntary retirement for pensionary benefits, having allowing

the petitioner to retire from service voluntarily w.e.f.

01.07.1999 under Rule 43 of Revised Pension Rules by the 3rd

respondent vide his orders dated 15.07.1999 as highly illegal,

arbitrary, unjust, improper and clear violative of orders of

erstwhile A.P. Administrative Tribunal, dated 20.03.2014 in WP_22076_2020 2 SN,J

O.A.No.5093 of 2013, to direct the 5th respondent to release

pension and other retiral benefits by duly accepting the

pension proposals submitted by the 4th respondent by

condoning the EOL period.

3. PERUSED THE RECORD :

4. The Order impugned in the present Writ Petition

reads as under :

GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA SCHOOL EDUCATION (SER.II) DEPARTMENT

Memo.No.575/Ser.II/A1/2015 Dated 08.09.2020

Sub: SE Deptt., Request of Smt.B. Sugandha, SGT, Voluntarily retired from Service, Govt. Girls High School. Rezimental Bazar No.1, for Condoning the EOL period for (01) year (05) months (27) days which is shortfall of qualifying services of 20 years for voluntary retirement for pensionary benefits-Rejected-Reg.

Ref: 1. From the C&DSE, Hyd.. Lr.No.171/Ser.IV-

1/2014, dated 02.01.2015.

2. Govt. Memo.No.575/Ser.II/A1/2015-1, dated 21.06.2016.

3. Representation of Smt. B. Sugandha, SOT., (Vol. Retd), Govt. Girls High School, Rezimental Bazar No. 1 addressed to the DEO, Hyderabad, dated 28.02.2018.

4. Govt. Memo.No.575/Ser.11/A1/2015, dated 19.03.2018

5. From the Government Pleader of Services (TS), High Court, Hyd., Lr.No WP.No.9774/ 2017/Services, dated 12.06.2018.

6. From the C&DSE, Hyd., Lr.Rc.No. 171/Ser.IV- 3/2014, dated 26.06.2018.

7. Govt. Memo.No.575/Ser.II/A1/2015, dated WP_22076_2020 3 SN,J

31.07.2018.

8. From the DSE, Hyd., Lr.Rc.No.171/Ser.IV- 3/2014, dated 25.03.2019.

9. Govt. Memo.No.575/Ser.II/A1/2015, dated 09.05.2019.

10.From the CSE, Hyd, Lr.Rc.No.171/Ser IV- 3/2014, dated 17.12.2019.

The attention of the Commissioner of School Education, Telagnana, Hyderabad is invited to the references cited and he is informed that request of Smt.B. Sugandha, SOT, Voluntarily retired from Service, Govt. Girls High School, Rezimental Bazar No.1 for condoning the EOL period for (01) year (05) months (27) days in relaxation of Rule 43 of Revised Pension Rule,1980 for releasing of pensionery benefits is examined in detailed and found not feasible for consideration, since Government do not agree for any relaxation of pension rules pertaining to service prescription.

2. The Commissioner of School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action in the matter.

3. This Memo, issued with the concurrence of the Finance (HRM.V) Dept., vide, their U.O.No.0095/11/A1/HRM.V/2020, dtd. 17.02.2020.

4. Original Service Register is returned herewith received vide reference 10 cited and acknowledge the receipt of the same.

CHITRA RAMCHANDRAN SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

5. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE:

6. The Petitioner's request for voluntary retirement was

considered by the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad and

vide proceedings in Rc.No.7783/C2/99, dated 15.07.1999, the WP_22076_2020 4 SN,J

District Educational Officer, Hyderabad was pleased to permit

the petitioner herein - Smt. B.Sugandha, Assistant Teacher,

Government Girls High School, Regimental Bazar No.1,

Secunderabad to retire voluntarily on private affairs w.e.f.

01.07.1999 under Rule 43 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules,

1980. Vide Proc. in Rc.No.3280/C4/2011, dated 31.10.2013

the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad District i.e., the 3rd

Respondent herein rejected the request of the Petitioner for

release of Petitioner's pension due to voluntary retirement

holding that the same is not feasible for consideration as the

Petitioner has not completed 20 years of qualifying service.

Challenging the impugned orders in Rc.No.3280/C4/2011,

dated 31.10.2013 of the 3rd Respondent the Petitioner

approached the A.P.A.T., at Hyderabad by filing O.A.No.5093

of 2013 and the said O.A. was disposed of by the orders dated

20.03.2014 observing as follows :

"In view of the above facts and circumstances, the OA is disposed of directing the 1st Respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposals of the 3rd Respondent, through the 2nd Respondent for condonation of the EOL period of 1 year 5 months and 27 days on medical grounds, as the power lies only with the government under Rule 54 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and the 3rd Respondent is directed to forward the proposals with al the relevant documents to the 1st Respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a WP_22076_2020 5 SN,J

copy of this order and thereafter the 1st Respondent is directed to issue necessary orders, condoning the period of 1 year 5 months and 27 days so that the applicant can draw her pensionary benefits. The process hall be completed by the 1st Respondent within a period of six weeks, after receiving the proposals from the District Educational Officer as ordered above. The impugned proceedings Rc.No.3280/C4/2011, dt. 31.10.2013 of the 3rd Respondent are set aside".

6. Vide Memo No.575/Service-II/A1/2015, dt.

09.05.2019 the 1st Respondent herein observed as

follows :

"In the circumstances reported by the Director of School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad, in the reference 6th & 8th cited and after careful examination of the matter, Government hereby accord permission to the Director of School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad, to sanction the EOL on Medical Grounds for (1) year (5) months (27) days in three different spells i.e., (a) 23.12.1988 to 30.06.1989 (25) days, (b) 23.02.1993 to 11.03.1993 (17 days), (c) 06.07.1994 to 20.04.1995 (289 days) in respect of B.Sugandha, SGT, Voluntarily retired from Service, Govt. Girls High School, Rezimental Bazar No.1, which will count for service as per FR (26) (b) (ii). Hence condoning the said period, which is stated to be as shortfall for minimum (20) years of Service for the sake of Voluntary retirement, does not arise, as the EOL sanctioned on Medical Grounds Counts for Service". Thereafter the 2nd Respondent even forwarded the above orders of the Government to the 3rd Respondent for taking necessary action and the 4th Respondent also requested the 5th Respondent to release the retiral benefits of the Petitioner.

7. A bare perusal of Letter Rc.No.171/Ser.IV-

3/2014, dated 17.12.2019 of the Commissioner, School WP_22076_2020 6 SN,J

Education, Telangana, Hyderabad addressed to the

Secretary to Government School, Education

Department, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad,

clearly indicates that the Commissioner, School

Education, Telangana, Hyderabad, referring to Rule 54

of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 requested the

Government for issuing orders of condonation of EOL

period for 1 year 5 months 27 days which is shortfall of

qualifying services of 20 years for voluntary retirement

of the petitioner since the Government is the

Competent Authority as per Rules.

8. Vide impugned order dated 08.09.2020 extracted

above, the Special Chief Secretary to Government,

however, rejected the request of the petitioner for

condoning the EOL period of 1 year 5 months 27 days

which is shortfall of qualifying services of 20 years for

voluntary retirement for pensionary benefits holding

that the same is not feasible for consideration since

Government do not agree for any relaxation of pension

rules pertaining to service prescription.

                                                          WP_22076_2020
                                7                                  SN,J

9. The Counter Affidavit filed by Respondents No.1 to

4, para 13 reads as under :

Para 13 : It is submitted that as a teacher, while applying for voluntary retirement, the petitioner should have submitted her application as to whether she has completed twenty years of service as per the provisions of F.R. It is the lapse on the part of the petitioner, even after scrutiny by the Accountant General and after the rejection of her request for sanction of Voluntary retirement the petitioner failed to submit revised proposals for sanction of retirement benefits for the service rendered by her. There is no lapse on the part of the administration in the process of the proposals. The petitioner should at least now submit revised pension proposals to the Head Master of the School who will scrutinize the pension proposals and sanction the pension benefits. Therefore, it is not feasible to pay interest on the pensionary benefits by the respondents.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

10. This Court opines that the order impugned has

been passed without application of mind mechanically

without taking into consideration the contents of the

clear recommendation of the 1st Respondent in favour

of the petitioner vide Memo No. No.575/Ser.II

/A1/2015, dated 09.05.2019 and the fact that

Government had accorded permission to the Director of

School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad to sanction

the EOL on medical grounds for 1 year 5 months 27 WP_22076_2020 8 SN,J

days in three different spells i.e., (a) 23.12.1988 to

30.06.1989 (25) days, (b) 23.02.1993 to 11.03.1993

(17 days), (c) 06.07.1994 to 20.04.1995 (289 days) in

respect of B.Sugandha, SGT, who Voluntarily retired

from Service, Govt. Girls High School, Rezimental Bazar

No.1, which will count for service as per PR (26) (b)

(ii). The 2nd Respondent instead of complying the

orders of the 1st Respondent dated 09.05.2019

curiously sent proposals to the 1st Respondent vide

letter dt. 17.12.2019 requesting for condoning the EOL

period for 1 year 5 months 27 days by mentioning

certain reasons. This Court opines that the 1st

respondent instead of issuing necessary relaxation

orders passed the present impugned proceedings

without giving any reasons except stating in two lines

that the 1st Respondent found Petitioner's request as

not found feasible for consideration since Government

did not agree for any relaxation of pension rules

pertaining to service prescription.

                                                         WP_22076_2020
                                 9                                SN,J

11. The Apex Court in its Judgment reported in (2022)

6 SCC 211 in Shankar Lal v. Hindustan Copper Limited &

Others1, dt. 20.04.2022 at para 26 observed as under :

"We do not think the appellant's complaint over the dispute was belated so as to non-suit him on this count alone. VRS benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of property to the employee concerned once his application for VRS is accepted. It is the right of a person under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India to have the VRS benefit to be given on accurate assessment thereof, the employer here being a public sector unit. If at the time of quantifying the VRS benefit after accepting an employee's application for voluntary retirement, the employer takes any step that would reduce such benefit in monetary terms, such step shall have to be taken under the authority of law".

12. The plea of the Respondents in the Counter

Affidavit that the Petitioner should submit revised

proposals for sanction of retirement benefits for the

service rendered by her is not sustainable and the same

is in fact unwarranted. This Court opines that there is

no justification in rejecting the petitioner's request for

release of pensionary benefits, vide the impugned

Memo.No.575/Ser.II/ A1/2015, dated 08.09.2020 of

the 1st Respondent.


    (2022) 6 SCC 211
                                                                      WP_22076_2020
                                      10                                       SN,J




13.   Taking       into       consideration      the    above    referred

circumstances and also the law laid down by the Apex

Court in the judgment referred to and extracted above,

this Court opines that after accepting the petitioner's

application for voluntary retirement and after

permitting the petitioner to retire, the petitioner cannot

be denied any benefits legally due to the petitioner in

monetary terms without any authority of law since VRS

benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of

property to the employee concerned, once an

employee's application for VRS is accepted, the Writ

Petition therefore, needs to be allowed as prayed for.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as prayed