Telangana High Court

A. Prabhakar And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 22 March, 2024

      *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


            + WRIT PETITION No. 26799 OF 2019


% 22-03-2024

# A Prabhakar and others
                                                        ....petitioners

Vs.

$ The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary Culture,
   Sports and tourism Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and
   others
                                              .... Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioners        : Sri M. Rama Rao


  Counsel for the Respondents        : Govt. Pleader for R & B




<Gist :




>Head Note:




? Cases referred:

  (2022) 4 SCC 627
                                    2



        IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                         HYDERABAD

                                 ****
              WRIT PETITION No. 26799 OF 2019


Between:

A Prabhakar and others
                                                        ....petitioners

Vs.

The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary Culture,
Sports and tourism Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and
others

                                                     ... Respondents


ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 22.03.2024


      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


1.      Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
        may be allowed to see the Judgments?            : Yes

2.      Whether the copies of judgment may be
        Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?               : Yes

3.      Whether His Lordship wishes to
        see the fair copy of the Judgment?              : Yes



                                    __________________________________
                                    NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
                                      3



  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


               WRIT PETITION No.26799 of 2019

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the

following relief:

"...to issue a Writ order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the retirement Gratuity as per Rule XVI (a) of Ravindra Bharathi Staff Rules is arbitrary, illegal and discrimination and consequently issue a direction to the respondents to pay the gratuity with interest @ 18% from the date when the amount is due and pass such other order..."

2. Heard Sri M. Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners. There is no representation on behalf of the

respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on

several occasions, there was no representation on behalf of the

respondents and today also, there is no representation on

behalf of the respondents. However, the respondents filed a

counter and based on the counter, this Court decided to finalise

the issue on merits.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The first petitioner was appointed as a Sound

Operator, second petitioner was appointed as an A.C. operator

and third petitioner was appointed as a wireman in Ravindra

Bharathi Auditorium, Hyderabad, and all of them retired from

service as Technical Supervisors on 31.12.2015, 30.04.2017

and 28.02.2019 respectively. On retirement, the Gratuity on

the basic pay for one month for every completed year of service

is subject to a maximum of 25 months pay. The said rules

were framed prior to their appointment. All the petitioners have

completed more than 35 years of service, and they are entitled

to gratuity as per Rule XVI (a) of Staff Service Rules of the

Ravindra Bharathi (for short, " Service Rules"). The grievance of

the petitioners is that they should have been paid the Gratuity

amount as per the Rules.

(ii) It is further the case of the petitioners that they do

not have any pension under the Rules as provided to the

Government employees. Prior to their retirement, more than 17

employees had retired from service. They were paid gratuity as

per Rule XVI (a) of the Service Rules and the management has

shown discrimination in respect of the petitioners as they were

paid only Rs.12,00,000/- as maximum gratuity of pay at the

time of their retirement based on G.O.Ms.No.99 Finance

(HRMV) Department, dated 21.07.2015. The said G.O. mainly

applies to the Government servants and pensioners, and it shall

not apply to the employees of the Ravindra Bharathi. As such,

the petitioners have made 15 representations, including on

17.01.2019 and 25.10.2019, to the respondents for payment of

retirement benefits as per Rule XVI (a) of the Service Rules, but

the respondents have paid the gratuity contrary to Staff Rules,

and amount has been paid basing on the said G.O.Ms.No.99,

dated 21.07.2015 which is maximum gratuity is Rs.12 lakhs.

Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

5. Counter has been filed by respondents No.2 and 3 stating

that pursuant to the PRC orders issued by the Government

w.e.f. 01.07.2013 to pay gratuity amount of Rs.12.00 lakhs as

the maximum limit eligible, with monetary benefit from

02.06.2014; the same was implemented with respect to the

petitioners. Rule XVI (a) of the Service Rules state that Gratuity

amounting to the basic pay for the month of every completed

year of service subject to a maximum of (25) months shall be

paid. It was further contended in the counter that Rule XVII:

GENERAL: states as follows: (a) In all matters where it is not

specified in service rules, AP Govt. Fundamental Rules will be

made applicable. (b) The Ravindra Bharathi Managing

Committee may add or delegate any of these rules. In the same

Staff Service Rules of employees under Rule-II Classification of

posts & their basic pay Class-II:-Supervisor, Air Conditioning

Technicians, Projectionists and other posts with a Basic Pay of

Rs.150/- and above.

6. The gratuity for the petitioners was fixed in accordance

with Rule XVI (a) of the Service Rules. Rule VII of the Service

Rules states that the benefits accruing to Government servants

from time to time in corresponding pay scales will apply to the

staff of Ravindra Bharathi. Accordingly, the Pay, Dearness

Allowance and Compensatory Allowances are being paid on par

with the State Government employees as per the PRC orders of

the Government from time to time. When the petitioners were

in service, the Basic Pay was Rs.150/- and above in the cadre

of Technical Supervisors, and therefore, the service Rules of

employees were implemented. However, being in the cadre of

Technical Supervisors, the petitioners come under the time

scale of Rs.28,940 - 78,910/- which is on par with the

Government employees. Further, they have a special provision

to work in Ravindra Bharathi up to the age of (60) years, which

is not provided to Government employees as their

superannuation age is 58 years only. In PRC 2015, the

Government issued a G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 21.07.2015 limiting

the gratuity amount to Rs. 12.00 lakhs, which applies to the

petitioners since they enjoy the pay scales on par with

Government employees. Therefore, there are no merits in this

writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

that the petitioners were appointed to various posts in Ravindra

Bharathi and retired from service after attaining the age of

superannuation. It was contended that according to Rule XVII

of the Service Rules, the A.P. Fundamental Rules would be

applicable only in matters which are not specified in the Service

Rules. As such, the petitioners are covered by the Service

Rules, and neither Government Executive Orders nor the State

Fundamental Rules shall apply to them. But, the said

G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 21.07.2015 was made applicable to the

petitioners, and they were deprived of the benefits to which they

are entitled. Had the said G.O.Ms No.99 not been made

applicable to the petitioners, they would have benefitted with

the following additional amounts:

     1st petitioner    :: Rs.7,25,750/-

     2nd petitioner    :: Rs.4,58,250/-

     3rd petitioner    :: Rs.4,58,250/-

Even the said G.O. clearly says it applies only to pensioners,

but the petitioners are not pensioners. The respondents

wrongly applied the said G.O. to the petitioners and denied the

entire gratuity as per the Service Rules. As such, the petitioners

are entitled to the total gratuity amount in accordance with the

Service Rules.

8. This Court, having heard the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioners, is of the considered view

that Rule 16(a) of the Service Rules states that Gratuity

amounting to the basic pay for the month of every completed

year of service subject to a maximum of (25) months shall be

paid to the employees, who are governed by the service Rules.

The respondents have accepted that when the petitioners were

in service, the Basic Pay was Rs.150/- and above in the cadre

of Technical Supervisor, and therefore, the service rules of

employees was implemented. The condition No.4 of the

G.O.Ms.No.99 Finance (HRM-V) Department, dated 21.07.2015

reads as follows:

"These orders shall come into force with effect from 02.06.2014 and shall apply to all Government Servants including the retired University/Government/Aided College Teachers who are drawing the UGC pay scales in the State and to all Non-Government Service Pensioners whose service pension is being charged to 2071 Pension and Other Retirement benefits who retired or whose death took place on or after this date."

9. A plain reading of the above condition shows that the said

G.O. applies to Government servants who are drawing the UGC

pay scales in the State and Non-Government Service Pensioners

whose service pension is being charged to 2071 Pension. As

such, when the respondents accept that the petitioners are

neither Government servants nor pensioners, then the question

of applying G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 21.07.2015, on the petitioners

does not arise. Moreover, where specific Service Rules exist for

Ravindra Bharathi, neither Government Executive Orders nor

State Fundamental Rules shall apply to the employees therein.

As such, the respondents have wrongly applied the said

G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 21.07.2015 to the petitioners instead of

applying Rule XVI (a) of Staff Service Rules of the Ravindra

Bharathi while calculating their gratuity.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners are also entitled to interest on the gratuity amount

as there is a delay in payment and in support of his contention,

he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in DR A. Selvaraj Vs. C.B.M. College and others 1,

wherein it was held that where there is a delay in paying

retirement dues to the retired employee for no fault of his, he is

entitled to interest on delayed payment. It was held:

In that view of the matter, subject to the further final order that may be passed by the Government, the College/Management is first liable to pay the interest on the delayed payment of retirement dues subject to the final decision, which may be taken by the Government, after hearing the Management and the former Secretary. However, because of the inter se dispute between the Management, Secretary and the Government on who is responsible for the delay in making the payment

(2022) 4 SCC 627

and/or settling the dues, the retired employee should not be made to suffer for no fault of his.

11. In view of the above discussions, the petitioners are

entitled to gratuity in terms of Rule XVI (a) of Staff Service

Rules of the Ravindra Bharathi and they are also entitled for

interest as there is delay in payment of the gratuity amount as

per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the

respondents to pay the remaining gratuity amount after giving

credit to the amount already paid, if any, to the petitioners in

terms of Rule XVI (a) of Staff Service Rules of the Ravindra

Bharathi with interest @ 6% p.a. on such amount, from the

date of filing of the Writ Petition till date of realization within a

period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of