B.Vara Laxmi vs State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 1633 Tel

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.

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

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,

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

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

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.

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

AIR 1971 SC 530

AIR 1985 SC 533

AIR 1985 SC 356

AIR 1961 SC 298

AIR 1968 SC 1053

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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