Dr.B. Jayasree vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3952 Tel

Telangana High Court

Dr.B. Jayasree vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 16 June, 2025

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

          HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


                WRIT PETITION No.8563 of 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of petitioner and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Services-I representing all the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

on record.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the

prayer as follows:

"......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 on contract basis by the petitioner from the year 18.12.2001 to 25.04.2006 in the Respondent Department to sanction regular pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980, on retiring from service on 30.09.2020 due to indecision of respondent Department from 16 long years as highly illegal, unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the past service rendered by the

SN,J

petitioner on contract basis from the year 18.12.2001 to 25.04.2006in the respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qualifying service to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rules 1980, with arrears along with interest from the date of retirement of petitioner w. e. f. 30.09.2020 on attaining age of superannuation with all consequential monetary benefits by awarding exorbitant costs against respondents for their indecision for 16 long years in forcing the petitioners to approach this Honble Court for justice to apply the judgments rendered in the similarly situated cases in W. P. No. 11735 of 2019 dt 06. 02. 2023 and the principle laid by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of 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 principal 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..."

3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the Respondent

Department in not taking any steps to count the temporary

service rendered on contract basis by the petitioner from the

SN,J

year 18.12.2001 to 25.04.2006 in the Respondent

Department to sanction regular pension gratuity and other

retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980 on

retiring from service on 30.09.2020 due to inaction of the

respondent Department for more than a decade in spite of

petitioner's repeated requests for the same. Aggrieved by the

said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached this

Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

4. It is represented by 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

2019 and hence, the present writ petition could be

allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated

24.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.7343 2019.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner contends that 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

SN,J

in the 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.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents does

not dispute the said submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

DISCUSSION AND CONLUSION:-

7. 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

SN,J

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.

(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."

8. 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, dated

14.08.2013 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

SN,J

property save by authority of la v." Once we proceed on that premise, 8 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.

9. The Division Bench of erstwhile AP High Court

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.

10. The judgment dated 23.08.2017 in Civil Appeals

No.10806 of 2017 with numbers 10805 of 2017 and

SN,J

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 computation of "qualifying service for grant of pension

SN,J

We order accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court."

11. 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

12. 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

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."

13. 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

SN,J

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."

14. A similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the

judgment dated 18.02.2022 in Petition for Special

Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1109/2022 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."

15. This Court opines that the specific plea put-forth

by the respondents that the petitioner is eligible only

SN,J

for counting her services from the date of her

regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated

22.04.1994 is untenable in view of the law and the

observations laid down by the Apex Court and other

Courts in the various judgments(referred to and

extracted above) and the petitioner cannot be

deprived of her constitutional right for counting the

past service rendered by the petitioner on contract

basis for the period from the year 18.12.2001 to

25.04.2006 in the respondent Department to reckon

the period for computation of qualifying service to

sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement

benefits to the petitioner as per law, except by

authority of law since pension is not a bounty, but

property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the

Constitution of India.

16. Taking into consideration:-

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

b) The submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned

SN,J

Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing

on behalf of the respondents.

c) The judgments of the Apex Court and other Courts(

referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted

below:-

i) 2013 (12) SCC 210, dated 14.08.2013

ii) Division Bench of erstwhile AP High Court vide its order dated 17.03.2016 in W.P.No.8201 of

iii) (2019) 10 SCC 542

iv) The Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2018, dated 16.01.2018

v) (2001) 10 SCC 473

vi) (2020) 1 SCC (L&S)

vii) Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1109/2022, dated 18.02.2022

d) Rule 13 and 14 of the AP Revised Pension Rules,

1980 (referred to and extracted above) which clearly

indicates that qualifying service of a Government

servant shall commence from the date he or she takes

charge of the post to which he or she is first appointed

either substantively or in an officiating or temporary

capacity.

The Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents

are directed to consider the request of the petitioner to

count the temporary service rendered on contract basis

SN,J

by the petitioner for the period from the year

18.12.2001 to 25.04.2006 in the Respondent

Department to reckon the period for computation of

qualifying service to sanction pension gratuity and

other retirement benefits as per revised pension rules

of 1980 in accordance to law, in conformity with

principles of natural justice by providing an

opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and

pass appropriate orders, within a period of three (03)

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and

duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. There

shall be no order as to cost.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

__________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

Date:16.06.2025 ktm