Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 414 (TS)

V. Venkata Swamy v. State of Telangana

2025-04-24

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : (SUREPALLI NANDA, J.) Heard Sri Nayakaw adi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under : “...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering claim of the petitioner for regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment from 29.05.2003 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, apart from violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services retrospectively from the date of their initial appointment from 29.05.2003 for the purpose of granting of annual grade increments, for promotion and old pension scheme, Telangana increment with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners were appointed as Multipurpose Health Assistants (Male) on a contract basis through a regular recruitment process pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.217 HM&FW dated 26.02.2001 and G.O.Rt.No.459 dated 22.05.2002. The selection was completed through a written examination, and appointment orders were issued vide Proc.Rc.Nos.E/29/MAL/2002-03 and RC/1551/2002-03 dated 29.05.2003, for 2324 posts, with a 100% gross salary, comprising Pay, Dearness Allowance (DA), and House Rent Allowance (HRA), in the Revised Pay Scale 1999 of Rs.3550–7150. Despite fulfilling all eligibility conditions and rendering over 20 years of uninterrupted and satisfactory service, the services of the petitioners remained contractual until G.O.Ms.No.38 Finance Department dated 30.04.2023 and G.O.Ms.No.51 Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department dated 03.05.2023 had been issued which regularized their services only with prospective effect, thereby denying the petitioners annual grade increments, promotional avenues, and pensionary benefits. It is further the case of the petitioners that as per G.O.Ms.No.16 Finance (HR-I) Department dated 23.02.2016, read with Section 10-A of the A.P. Public Employment Act, 1994, the petitioners satisfy all the prescribed conditions for regularization from the date of their initial appointment. 4. It is further the case of the petitioners that as per G.O.Ms.No.16 Finance (HR-I) Department dated 23.02.2016, read with Section 10-A of the A.P. Public Employment Act, 1994, the petitioners satisfy all the prescribed conditions for regularization from the date of their initial appointment. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioners that, in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioners to consider their claim for regularization of their services retrospectively from the date of their initial appointment i.e., from 29.05.2003, for the purpose of granting of annual grade increments, for promotions, and for the benefits of the old pension scheme, the respondents have not considered their requests as on date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits 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 in the case of Yata Satireddy v. State of Telangana. The relevant portion paragraph No.15 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder : “ 15. 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. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances and Rule 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 and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in 2013 (12) SCC 210 and the law laid down by the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in WP No.8201 of 2016 in State of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by its Secretary, Finance & Planning and the view taken in all the judgments referred to and extracted above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to forthwith process the pension proposals of the petitioner returned vide Lr.D.A.O.S.A.No.523/A1/2015-16, dated 13.01.2016 of the 1 st Respondent, and issue the pension payment order sanctioning the pension and pensionary benefits duly computing the service from the date of appointment of the petitioner i.e., 22.06.1994 for the purpose of sanction of pension, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. There shall be no order as to cost.” 6. 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 day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.” 7. 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.” 7. 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 HabibKhan v State of Uttarakhand at paras 6 and 7 it isobserved as under: “ 6. The parimateria 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 parimateria 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 parimateria 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.” 8. 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 continuous 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.” 9. 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 by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. 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 w e noticed above, so far as statutory Rues are concerned, there is no provision for w ithholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these Rules, the position would have been different." 10. This Court opines that the requests made by the petitioners to consider their claim for regularization of their services retrospectively from the date of their initial appointments need to be considered in accordance to Law as per the observations of the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above. 11. Taking into consideration: (i) The submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondents, (ii) The order dated 24.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.7343 of 2019, (iii) The view of the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above and again enlisted below : (a) (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) (b) (2019) 10 SCC 542 (c) Judgment dated 18.01.2022 in State of Gujarat and others v. Talsibhak Dhanjibhai Patel (d) 2013 (12) SCC 210 The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services retrospectively from the date of their initial appointment i.e., from 29.05.2003, for the purpose of granting annual grade increments, promotions, and old pension scheme, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court and other Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above), and pass appropriate orders and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.