ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II , appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the inaction of the respondents are not releasing the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner though he was retired from service vide proceedings dt 30/6/2020 as Sweeper-cum-Watchman in the office of the 3 rd respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and also in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and declare the same as bad in law and consequently direct the respondents to release the pension and pensionary benefits for which the petitioner is entitled as he was retired from service on 30/6/2020 as Sweeper cum Watchman in the office of the 3 rd respondent and to pass...”. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Contingent Sweeper-cum-Watchman on 20.07.1989 and thereafter the services of the petitioner were absorbed and converted into regular post in the last grade service as per the proceedings dated 25.04.2001. The petitioner was also given special grade scale after completion of 8 years of service in the last grade service. Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent issued proceedings dated 31.03.2009 cancelling the conversion order of the petitioner as a last grade service as per G.O.Ms.No.184, dated 28.06.1991 without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.A. No.5161 of 2009 before the Tribunal challenging the impugned cancellation of conversion orders dated 25.04.2001 and the same was suspended by the Tribunal vide orders dated 09.04.2009. The Government filed VMA No.164 of 2010 against the order dated 09.04.2009 and the same was dismissed vide orders dated 14.09.2011. The petitioner had retired from service on 30.06.2020 and after retirement petitioner submitted all the documents for pensionary benefits, but the respondents have not taken any action till date even after multiple representations. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner had retired from service on 30.06.2020 and after retirement petitioner submitted all the documents for pensionary benefits, but the respondents have not taken any action till date even after multiple representations. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD A. The relevant portion of the order of this Court, dated 23.09.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.26566 and 41971 of 2022 is extracted hereunder:- 9. Having regard to the rival contention and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has been converted as a Sweeper-cum-Watchman vide proceedings dated 25.04.2001 and the cancellation have been challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has already set aside the same by holding such orders to be in violation of principles of natural justice. However, liberty was given to the respondents to take action in accordance with law. In spite of the orders being passed by the Court in the year 2011, the respondents have not taken any action to re-initiate proceedings against the petitioner for cancellation of regularization. The interim direction of the Tribunal was to continue the petitioner in the last grade service and he was also sanctioned regular annual grade increments every year and also regular PRCs were admittedly released in favour of the petitioner. Since, the appointment of the petitioner and absorption thereafter has not been disputed by the authorities, the petitioner is entitled for pension and pensionary benefits consequent to his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, the reasons given by the respondents for rejecting the representation of the petitioner or denying the pension, pensionary benefits are not sustainable. Further in respect of GPF amount also the petitioner has given the details of GPF account and also the pay slips to prove that the deduction has been made towards GPF from the petitioner’s salary account. Since the deductions have been made from the salary of the petitioner, which is the petitioner’s own money, which cannot be detained by the respondents for whatsoever reasons, it has to be refunded to the petitioner. Since the deductions have been made from the salary of the petitioner, which is the petitioner’s own money, which cannot be detained by the respondents for whatsoever reasons, it has to be refunded to the petitioner. B. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II , appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 placed reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit, in particular, page No.6 para No.2, page No.7 para No.3, and page No.8 para No.3 and the same are extracted hereunder: “The Full Time Contingent employees are also not eligible as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 for regularization as Last Grade Service. It is submitted that the clarification issued by the ENC reads as follows:- S.No. Description Remarks 1. Conversion from Part Time Sweeper into Full Time Contingent Sweeper cum Watchman The Conversion from Part Time employees into Full Time employees is not as per rules as there is no provision for such conversion. 2. G.O.Ms.No.184, F & P (FW:PRC.III) Dept, Dt : 28.06.1991, conditions for conversion into LGS Para 4 (1) they should have already received the benefit as per G.O.Ms.No.233, F&P Dept, Dt : 19.08.1983 read with G.O.Ms.No.344, F&P Deptt, Dt : 13.11.1989 Including extending Rs.740/- minimum pay allowances in RPS, 1988 on completion of 5 years retrospectively by 1994 Since on the date of issue of G.O. they have not completed 5 years in Full time. the petitioner not covered as per G.O.Ms.No.233, Dt.19.08.1983, The petitioner is working as Part Time Sweeper but not Full Time Contingent. Therefore, the condition of Para 4 (1) of G.O.Ms.No.184, Dt 28.06.1191 was also not fulfilled. And not existed as per the said G.Os. Para 4 (2), they should not have received the benefit of the orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No.38, F&P Dept, Dt : 01.02.1980 and G.O.Ms.No.9, F&P, Deptt, Dt: 08.01.1981 They are not existed as per the said G.O. Para 4 (3), the posts which they are holding should have been in existence for 10 years as on 01.06.1991. The Petitioner is not holding the Full Time contingent Sweeper Cum Watchman for 10 years as on 01.06.1991 and actually completed 2 years only in the Full Time as on 01.06.1991. The petitioner is converted to Full Time Contingent in 29.07.1989 and not fulfills condition. Para 4 (4), they should have completed 10 years of Service as on 01.06.1991. The Petitioner is not holding the Full Time contingent Sweeper Cum Watchman for 10 years as on 01.06.1991 and actually completed 2 years only in the Full Time as on 01.06.1991. The petitioner is converted to Full Time Contingent in 29.07.1989 and not fulfills condition. Para 4 (4), they should have completed 10 years of Service as on 01.06.1991. The Full Time contingent Sweeper cum watchman are completed 2 years as on 01.06.1991, the appointment into Full time Contingent is 20.07.1989 respectively only and retrospective conversion by taking 10 years of Full Time Contingent service is not in accordance with the para 4 (4) and not fulfill condition. 3. As per G.O.Ms.No.212, Dt : 22.4.1994, wherein the stipulated conditions for regularization of Full Time Contingent employees is shall have completed 5 years of service as on 25.11.1983 with 7th class pass as O.S. These employee is not eligible for regularization as he is not having 5 years service as Full Time Contingent service as on 25.11.1993. It is respectfully submitted that the conversion of the above Part Time Contingent into Full Time Contingent and also further conversion into Last Grade Service is irregular which is against the provision of Act 2 of 1994, and G.O.Ms.No.212, dt 22.4.1994, Circular Memo No.16921/125/A2/PC.III/97, dated 10.09.1997 and there is no violation of rules. Hence Sri S. Cheralu is not eligible for conversion into Last Grade Service and any such benefits as per the above Act, rules”. C. Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, ‘the Rules’) deal with the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the purpose of payment of pension. These Rules read as under: “ 13. C. Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, ‘the Rules’) deal with the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the purpose of payment of pension. These Rules read 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 pensionable post prior to the 17th November, 1960, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen years shall not count for any purpose; and (b) in the case of a Government servant not covered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen 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 unless his duties and pay are 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.” From the above reproduced Rules, it is clear that qualifying service of a Government servant commences from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity, 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 in Rule 14 of the Rules for counting his temporary service for pensionary benefits. Under this Rule, unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government or under the conditions determined by the Government, such service was not qualified for pension. A temporary employee shall further satisfy the conditions stipulated in Rule 14 of the Rules for counting his temporary service for pensionary benefits. Under this Rule, unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government or under the conditions determined by the Government, such service was not qualified for pension. The meaning of the word “service” under sub-Rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Rules is explained in sub-Rule (2) thereof, as per which the service is under the Government and the salary is paid by the Government from the Consolidated Fund of the State, but the same does not include the service of a non-pensionable establishment, unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government. D. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the common order of this Court dated 23.09.2023 passed in W.P. Nos. 26566 and 41971 of 2022 and the order dated 10.07.2024 passed in Review I.A. No. 1 of 2023 in W.P. No. 41971 of 2022 filed by the State of Telangana and others against the order dated 23.09.2023 passed in W.P. Nos. 26566 and 41971 of 2022, contends that the petitioner is entitled for the similar relief as extended to the petitioners there under in the said cases. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 based on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents (referred to and extracted above) contends that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. 7. This Court opines that pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner who retired from service vide proceedings dated 30.06.2020 as Sweeper-cum-Watchman in the office of the 3 rd respondent cannot be withheld by the respondents which is petitioner’s own money. 8. In a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Jharkhand and others v. 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 judgment is extracted hereunder: “16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in “property”. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur 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 by 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 termed 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 statutory 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. This Court opines that the Petitioner cannot be deprived of his constitutional right for pension 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 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition. 10. This Court opines that the Petitioner cannot be deprived of his constitutional right for pension 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 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition. 10. 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 the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents and, c) The order of this Court, dated 23.09.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.26566 and 41971 of 2022 (referred to and extracted above) d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 (referred to and extracted above) e) Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, ‘the Rules’) (referred to and extracted above) f) The observations of the Apex Court in State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in 2013 (12) SCC 210 g) The order of this Court, dated 23.09.2023 passed in W.P. Nos. 26566 and 41971 of 2022, which had been confirmed in the Review I .A. No.1 of 2023 in W.P. No. 41971 of 2022, dated 10.07.2024 h) The fact the petitioner retired from service as Sweeper-cum-Watchman from the office of the 3 rd respondent on 30.06.2020, The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for release of pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner since the petitioner retired from service vide Proceedings vide office order No.EE/ OC&I / Div.No.5/ KCC/ Wgl/ EC1/ 177, dated 30.06.2020 as Sweeper-Cum- Watchman in the office of 3 rd respondent and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order in accordance to law , duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (12) SCC 210 in State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another (referred to and extracted above) and also the common order of this Court dated 23.09.2023 passed in W.P. Nos. 26566 and 41971 of 2022, (referred to and extracted above) which had been confirmed in the Review I.A. No.1 of 2023 in W.P. No. 41971 of 2022, dated 10.07.2024, preferred by the respondent-Telangana Government and duly communicate the decision on the subject issue of release of pension, pensionary benefits, gratuity amounts due to the petitioner as per petitioners’ legal entitlement as per law. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.