Mateti Ramaswamy, vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5149 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mateti Ramaswamy, vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 29 April, 2025

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

         HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


            WRIT PETITION No.3949 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri. Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing on

behalf of respondent No.1, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf

of respondent No.2 and 3, and Sri Kishore Rao

Puskuru, learned Standing Counsel for TS Zilla

Parishads, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking

prayer as under:

"...to issue a wit order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not counting the past temporary service rendered by the petitioner in the contingent establishment from the date of his initial appointment on 1976 to till 2018, for computation of qualifying service by reckoning contingent service rendered by the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No. 156, Finance and Planning (FW.PEN.1) Department, dated 29.04.1983, for the purpose to sanction of pension and Gratuity on even of retirement of petitioner by applying principle laid by Hon'ble Supreme

SN, J WP_3949_2023

Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others in Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2019 and batch dt 2.9.2019, (2019) 10 SCC 516), and in the case of Habib Khan Verses State of Uttarakhand and others in Civikl Appeal No.10806 of 2017 and batch dt 23.08.2017, (2019) 10 SCC 542, along with orders in Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2018, dt : 16.02.3028 in (2019 10 SCC 545) followed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in E.P. No.8201 of 2016, dated 17.03.2016, and in W.P. No.17700 of 2016 dated 20.06.2017, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the pre-absorption service of petitioner herein in temporary capacity in the contingent establishment for the purpose of computation of qualifying service for sanction of pension and Gratuity, other retirement benefits and by applying the principle laid by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Krishna Bembi Vs. appellate authority dt :

25.05.2015, to the petitioner herein under Article 141 of Constitution of India and pass...".

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the

averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed

by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition

is as under:

SN, J WP_3949_2023

The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the

inaction of the respondents to count the pre-absorption

service of petitioner herein in temporary capacity in the

contingent establishment for the purpose of computation of

qualifying service for sanction of pension and Gratuity, other

retirement benefits and 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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

SN, J WP_3949_2023

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 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 -

SN, J WP_3949_2023

(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.

(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.

SN, J WP_3949_2023

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.

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

SN, J WP_3949_2023

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 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-

SN, J WP_3949_2023

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 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

SN, J WP_3949_2023

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 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

SN, J WP_3949_2023

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 appearing on behalf

of the respondents,

(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.

SN, J WP_3949_2023

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.

The Writ Petition is allowed and the

Respondents are directed to consider the request of the

petitioner to process the pension proposals of the

petitioner 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 petitioner 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)

SN, J WP_3949_2023

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