Dr.C.Narmada vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5228 Tel

Telangana High Court

Dr.C.Narmada vs The State Of Telangana on 30 April, 2025

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

         HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


             WRIT PETITION No.9206 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf

of the respondents.

2. The petitioners approached this Court seeking the

prayer as under:

"....to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the indecision of the Respondent Department in not taking any steps to count the temporary service rendered by petitioners in officiating position on contract basis against sanctioned posts for working as medical officers from the year 2002 to 2006 on par with regularly engaged Medical Officers of respondent department for all service purposes to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980, on their attaining age of superannuation as highly illegal, unjust, unfair arbitrary & violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 39(d), 43 & 300-A of the constitution and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the past service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis from the year 2002 to 2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the

SN,J W.P.No.9206_2023 period for computation of qualifying service from respective date of initial appointment of petitioners on contract basis on Consolidated pay to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioners on attaining their age of superannuation as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rules 1980 with all consequential monetary benefits by applying the judgment rendered in the similarly situated cases in W.P.No.11735 of 2019 dt.06.02.2023 as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Devarakonda Srilakshmi Vs Government of A.P., (2010 2ALD 165) under Article 141 of our Constitution in the present case treating the petitioner as similar to them not as dissimilar as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.6260-6261 of 2021, dt.26.10.2021, (2021(6)ALD 285(SC) and pass such order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

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:

The petitioners approached this Court aggrieved by

the inaction of the respondents to count the past service

rendered by the petitioners on contract basis from the year

2002 to 2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the

period for computation of qualifying service from respective

SN,J W.P.No.9206_2023 date of initial appointment of petitioners on contract basis on

Consolidated pay to sanction pension, gratuity and other

retirement benefits to the petitioners on attaining their age of

superannuation as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rules 1980

with all consequential monetary benefits by applying the

judgment rendered in the similarly situated cases in

W.P.No.11735 of 2019 dt.06.02.2023 as per the principle laid

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Devarakonda

Srilakshmi Vs Government of A.P., (2010 2ALD 165) under

Article 141 of our Constitution in the present case treating the

petitioner as similar to them not as dissimilar as per the

principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.6260-

6261 of 2021, dt.26.10.2021, (2021(6)ALD 285(SC).

4. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners 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

SN,J W.P.No.9206_2023 the said submission made by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

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 -

(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,

SN,J W.P.No.9206_2023 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.

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

SN,J W.P.No.9206_2023 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 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

SN,J W.P.No.9206_2023 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-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

SN,J W.P.No.9206_2023 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 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:

SN,J W.P.No.9206_2023

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 petitioners and the learned

Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of

the respondents,

(b) The contents of the judgment dated 24.11.2022

passed in W.P.No.7343 of 2019.

SN,J W.P.No.9206_2023

(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.

The Writ Petition is allowed and the

Respondents are directed to consider the request of the

petitioners to process the pension proposals of the

SN,J W.P.No.9206_2023 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.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

___________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA 30.04.2025 LPD