Telangana High Court
A.Karuna Sri vs The State Of Telangana on 29 April, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.10600 OF 2023
ORDER:
Heard Sri. Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on
behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri P. Bhanu Prakash,
learned Standing Counsel for Kakatiya University,
Warangal, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and
3.
2. The petitioners approached this Court seeking the
prayer as under:
"...to issue a wit, order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction
of the respondents in not counting the past temporary
service rendered by the petitioners on daily wages &
adhoc basis to reckon the same for computation of
qualifying service as per G.O.Ms.No.156, Finance and
Planning (FW.PEN.1) Department, dated 29.04.1983, for
purpose to sanction of pension Gratuity and other
retirement benefits on eve of retirement of petitioners as
ordered in similar cases in G.O.Ms.No.179 (School Edu
(Proc.-I) Dept dt : 18.11.2002. by not applying principles
laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others in Civil Appeal
SN, J
WP_10600_2023
No.6798 of 2019 and batch dated 02.09.2019, (2019) 10
SCC 510), and in the case of Habib Khan verses State of
Uttarakhand and others in Civil Appeal No.10806 of 2017
and batch dated 23.08.2017 (2019) 10 SCC 542) followed
by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.8201
of 2016, dated 17.03.2016 and in similar case in W.P.
No.11735/2019 dated 06.02.2023, as highly illegal,
arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional against the principles of
natural justice, equity and fair play and amounts to
violation of Articles 14, 16, 21, 39 (d), 43 & 300-A of
Constitution of India and prays to direct the respondent
herein to count the pre-absorption service rendered by
petitioners herein in temporary capacity on daily wage &
ad hoc basis from the year 1990 to 2013 till on regular
absorption of their services in the year 2013 for the
purpose of computation of qualifying service for sanction
of pension Gratuity & other retirement benefits by
applying the principles laid by Apex Court and Hon'ble
High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt.Krishna Bembi
Vs. Appellate Authority, dated 25-05-2015 to the
petitioners herein under Article 141 of Constitution of
India and pass....".
3. The case of the petitioners in brief as per the
averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed
by the petitioners in support of the present writ
petition is as under:
SN, J
WP_10600_2023
The petitioners were initially appointed in the year 1989
and 1990 on daily wages, and in the year 1991 (25-10-1991)
issued approval to award the pay scales to the petitioners
against the sanction post as per G.O.Rt.No.1943, Edn,
Education (UE.R) Department, Dt.07.10.1991. In fact after
nearly 17 years, vide Orders No.116/A4/KU/2008, dated
09.04.2008, extended the Minimum time Scale benefits to the
daily wage/petitioners working at SDLCEKU, w.e.f.,
01.04.2008, and awarded the Minimum Time Scale of pay i.e.,
Basic Pay + DA + HRA + CCA and thus petitioners were paid
Minimum Time Scale of pay in respect of their post.
The petitioners approached this Court aggrieved by the
inaction of the respondents to count the
pre-absorption service rendered by petitioners herein in
temporary capacity on daily wage & ad hoc basis from the
year 1990 to 2013 till on regular absorption of their services
in the year 2013 for the purpose of computation of qualifying
service for sanction of pension Gratuity & other retirement
benefits by applying the principles laid by Apex Court and
Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt.Krishna
SN, J
WP_10600_2023
Bembi Vs. Appellate Authority, dated 25-05-2015 to the
petitioners herein under Article 141 of Constitution of India.
4. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that the subject issue in the present
writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court
dated 24.11.2022 passed in W.P. No.7343 of 2019 and
therefore the petitioners herein are entitled for the
same relief as extended to the petitioners in W.P.
No.7343 of 2019.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader,
appearing on behalf of the respondents does not
dispute the said submission made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
6. The relevant portion of the order of this Court in
W.P. No. 7343 of 2019, dated 24.11.2022 in particular
para Nos. 5 to 8 & 10 to 14 are extracted hereunder.
"5. Under identical circumstances, the Division Bench
of the High Court in W.P.No.8201 of 2016 dated
17.03.2016 referring to Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra
Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 which deal with
the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the
purpose of payment of pension held that the qualifying
SN, J
WP_10600_2023
service of a Government Servant shall commence from
the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first
appointed with substantively or in an officiating or
temporary capacity.
6. Subject to the exceptions contained in Clauses
(a) and (b) of Rule 13 of the Rules a temporary
employee shall further satisfy the conditions stipulated
under Rule 14 of the Rules for counting his temporary
service for pensionary benefits. Rules 13 and 14 of the
Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 deals with
the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the
purpose of payment of pension which reads as under:
"13. Commencement of qualifying service:
Subject to the provisions of the rules, qualifying service
of a Government servant shall commence from the date
he takes charge of the post to which he is first
appointed either substantively or in an officiating or
temporary capacity:
Provided that -
(a) in the case of a Government servant in a Class
IV service or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on
a permanent persionable post prior to the 17th
November, 1960, service rendered before attaining the
age of sixteen (16) years shall not count for any
purpose; and
(b) in the case of a Government servant
nocovered by clause (a), service rendered before
attaining the age of eighteen (18) years shall not count,
except for compensation gratuity.
14. Conditions subject to which service qualifies:
(1) The service of a Government servant shall not
qualify duties are and pay unless his regulated by the
Government, or under conditions determined by the
Government.
SN, J
WP_10600_2023
(2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression
service means service under the Government and paid
by the Government from the Consolidated Fund of the
State but does not include service in a non-pensionable
establishment unless such service is treated as
qualifying service by the Government."
7. The Division Bench vide its order dated
17.03.2016 in W.P.No.8201 of 2016 very clearly held
that the Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion
that temporary service shall be counted as qualifying
service for the purpose of pension under Rules 13 and
14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
8. Under similar circumstances in pursuance to
the order dated 20.06.2017 passed in W.P.No.17700 of
2016 one Sri P. Dasharadham, approached the High
Court for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ
petition and the same was implemented by the
respondents therein vide Lr.No.6047/CRP&RE/C-
2/2018, dated 10.10.2018 and also communicated the
same to the petitioner thereunder vide letter
Rc.No.B10/4170/2015, dated 08.10.2018.
10. In W.P.No.1425 of 2019, under similar
circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court
considered the issue where the past services of the
applicant prior to their regularization can be taken into
consideration for the purpose of pension. The Division
Bench in its judgment dated 15.10.2019 referring to the
judgments of the Apex Court reported in (2001) 10 SCC
473 State of Tamil V. T.N. Registration Department
Ministerial Service Association at paras 9, 10 and 11
held hereunder:
"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 and also the
Karnataka High Court in B.H. Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Limited.
SN, J
WP_10600_2023
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 regularization, has to be considered for the of
pensionary benefits.
11. It is also to be noted here that the orders
passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6524 of 2014 and
batch dated 14.11.2014 were not challenged and they
have become final. Therefore, once the orders of the
Tribunal are not challenged and have become final,
there is no other option for the authorities except to
implement the same."
11. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in
(2020) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Singh v State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, at para 36 held as under:
"36. There are some of the employees who have
not been regularized in spite of having rendered the
services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have
been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-
charged establishment, not against any particular
project, their services ought to have been regularized
under the Government instructions and even as per the
decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus
Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid
down that in case services have been rendered for more
than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as
one-time measure, the services be regularized of such
employees. In the facts of the case, those employees
who have worked for ten years or more should have
been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate
them for consideration of regularization as others have
been regularized, we direct that their services be
treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that
they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of
difference in wages had they been continued in service
regularly before attaining the age of superannuation.
They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if
they have retired from the regular establishment
and the services rendered by them right from the
SN, J
WP_10600_2023
day they entered the work-charged establishment
shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose
of pension."
12. The judgment dated 23.08.2017 in Civil
Appeals No.10806 of 2017 with numbers 10805 of
2017 and 10807 of 2017 reported in (2019) 10
SCC 542, in Habib Khan v State of Uttarakhand at
paras 6 and 7 it is observed as under:
"6. The pari materia provision contained in Rule 3.17(ii)
of the Punjab Civil Services Rules had been struck down
by a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab. The challenge
by the State against the aforesaid decision of the Full
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was
negatived by this Court. The matter came up for
consideration before this Court, once again, in Punjab
SEB versus Narata Singh. While dealing with the said
question this Court in Para 25 of the report held that the
Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court was perfectly justified in striking down Rule
3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules resulting in
obliteration of the distinction made in the said Rules
between "temporary and officiating service" and work-
charged service on the said basis, this Court took the
view that the period of work-charged service should be
reckoned for purposes of computation of "qualifying
service" for grant of pension. 7. As already observed,
the provisions of Regulation 370 of the Civil Services
Regulations applicable to the State of Uttarakhand are
pari materia with the provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the
Punjab Civil Services Rules, discussed above. If that is
so, we do not see as to why the period of service
rendered on work-charged basis by the appellants
should not be counted for purposes of computation of
"qualifying service" for grant of pension. The pari
materia provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil
Services Rules having been interpreted and understood
in the above manner by this Court in Narata Singh we
do not find any room for taking any other view except
to hold that the appellants are entitled to reckon the
period of work-charged service for purposes of
SN, J
WP_10600_2023
computation of "qualifying service for grant of pension
We order accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside
the impugned orders passed by the High Court."
13. The Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2018 filed
before the Apex Court Aggrieved by the orders
dated 23.08.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.
10806 of 2017 in Habib Khan v State of
Uttarakhand was dismissed by the Apex Court
vide orders dated 16.01.2018 and a similar view
was taken by the Apex Court in the judgment
dated 18.01.2022 in the State of Gujarat and
others v Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel observing as
follows:
"It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the
services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years
and thereafter now to contend that as the services
rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not
entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot
be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To
take the Services continuously for 30 years and
thereafter to contend that an employee who has
rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible
for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare
State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a
stand.
In the present case, the High Court has not committed
any error in directing the State to pay pensionary
benefits to the respondent who has retired after
rendering more than 30 years service.
Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed."
Paras 15, 17 and 18 which reads as under:
14. In a judgment of the Apex Court in State of
Jharkhand and others versus Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava and another reported in 2013 (12) SCC
210 it was held that pension and gratuity are not
bounty, but property within the meaning of Article
SN, J
WP_10600_2023
300-A of the Constitution of India. Paragraphs 16
and 17 of the report states as under:
16. The fact remains that there is an imprimature to the
legal principle that the right to receive pension is
recognized as a right in "property". "Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India reads as under:
"300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by
authority of law No person shall be deprived of his
property save by authority of law." Once we proceed on
that premise, the answer to the question posed b US in
the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A
person cannot be deprived of this pension without the
authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate
enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows
that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of
pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without
any statutory provision and under the umbrage of
administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.
17. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive
instructions are not having statutory character and,
therefore, cannot be tern ed as "law" within the
meaning of the aforesaid Article 300-A. On the basis of
such a circular, which is not having force of law, the
appellant cannot withhold even a part of pension or
gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as stat story Rules
are concerned, there is no provision for withholding
pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there
been any such provision in these Rules, the position
would have been different."
7. Taking into consideration:
(a) The submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education,
appearing on behalf of the respondents,
SN, J
WP_10600_2023
(b) The contents of the judgment dated
24.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.7343 of 2019.
(c) Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh
Revised Pension Rules 1980 which clearly indicate that
qualifying service of a Government Servant shall
commence from the date he takes charge of the post to
which he is first appointed either substantively or in an
officiating or temporary capacity and the fact as borne
on record that temporary service shall be counted as
qualifying service for the purpose of Pension under
Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension
Rules 1980.
d) The observations of the Apex Court and Other
Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted
above) and again enlisted below:-
i) The order of this Court, dated 24.11.2022
passed in W.P. No. 7343 of 2019.
ii) (2001) 10 SCC 473
iii)((2020) 1 SCC (L&S)
iv) (2019) 10 SCC 542
v) 2013 (12) SCC 210
vi) The judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra
Pradesh High Court, dated 17.03.2016 passed in
W.P.No.8201 of 2016.
vii) The judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra
Pradesh High Court, dated 15.10.2019, passed in
W.P.No.1425 of 2019.
SN, J
WP_10600_2023
The Writ Petition is allowed and the
Respondents are directed to consider the request of the
petitioners to process the pension proposals of the
petitioners for issuance of the pension payment order
sanctioning the pension and pensionary benefits by
duly computing the service from the date of initial
appointment of the petitioners for the purpose of
sanction of pension, within a period of three (03)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
in accordance to law, duly taking into consideration the
observations of the Apex Court and Others Courts in the
various judgments (referred to and extracted above)
and pass appropriate orders. However, there shall be
no order as to cost.
The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date: 29.04.2025
Skj
