Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 809 (TS)

N. Padmnabha Rao v. State of Telangana

2025-06-09

PULLA KARTHIK

body2025
ORDER : PULLA KARTHIK, J. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner w.e.f.01.02.2003 or 09.08.2004 and consequently depriving the petitioner of his pension benefits, the present writ petition is filed. 2) Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Mudiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 3) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Post-Graduate in English, did his Ph.D. and was appointed as a Part Time lecturer in respondent No.4 college in the year 1985. Thereafter, in November, 1992, he was orally terminated from the said post. Questioning the said termination, petitioner filed W.P. No.20370 of 1993 and the said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 04.04.2002. Writ Appeal No.1432 of 2002 filed by the respondents was also dismissed vide judgment dated 30.09.2002. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that one Sri P.Pratap Reddy, who was working as Lecturer in English in respondent No.4 College was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2002 and the said vacancy was taken note by this Court in its order dated 04.04.2002. In compliance of the order dated 31.01.2002 and judgment dated 30.09.2002, respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 07.02.2003 and 30.07.2003 directing respondent No.4 College to appoint the petitioner as Part Time Lecturer in first instance and then to send proposals for regularization of his services. In pursuance to the same, respondent No.4 College took a decision on 11.08.2003 to engage the petitioner again as Part Time Lecturer (English) and accordingly he was employed from 19.08.2003. Further, after calling for required particulars, respondent No.2 has issued proceedings in Rc.No.333/Admn./VII- 1/1994, dated 21.09.2004, regularizing the services of the petitioner as lecturer in English as a special case in the existing grant-in-aid vacancy in respondent No.4 College w.e.f.21.09.2004. Learned senior counsel has contended that all the colleagues of the petitioner who joined the service prior to 15.10.1997 have the benefit of pension apart from several other benefits under Revised Pension Rules, 1980. But, in view of the policy decision taken by the Government to dispense with pension from 01.09.2004, the petitioner is deprived of his pension and other benefits. But, in view of the policy decision taken by the Government to dispense with pension from 01.09.2004, the petitioner is deprived of his pension and other benefits. Learned senior counsel has vehemently contended that if the regularization of the petitioner was made effective atleast from 09.08.2004, on which date the Government took a decision to regularize the services of the petitioner by issuing G.O.Rt.No.494, dated 09.08.2004, the petitioner would have the benefit of pension. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the cases of one Dr. R.V. Anuradha, Dr. A. Dayamani and Smt. M.S. Bhagyamma, whose cases were considered for notional promotion for the purpose of pension and contended that the petitioner is also entitled for similar relief. Therefore, the learned senior counsel prayed this Court to allow the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on: 1) Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569 2) The Government of A.P. v. N. Venkaiah , [2018 (4) 6 (D.B.)] 3) Common Order dated 27.12.2024 passed in I.A. No.2 of 2024 in W.P. No.34923 of 2016 & batch. 4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader, while admitting the fact that the petitioner has been working as Part Time lecturer in English in Respondent No.4 College, has submitted that in W.P. No.20370 of 1993, this Hon’ble High Court while setting aside the termination of the petitioner has held that the action of the Management in terminating the services of the petitioner is in violation of Section 83 of A.P. Education Act, 1992, and concluded that the Government has to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services keeping in view the work load of aided post in respondent No.4 college and the same was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.1432 of 2002 dated 04.04.2002. Therefore, based on the above directions, the Management Committee of respondent No.4 College has submitted proposals to respondent No.3 office for regularization of services of the petitioner. After due verification, the matter was addressed to Government for regularization of services of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Rt.No.328, dated 15.10.1993. Therefore, based on the above directions, the Management Committee of respondent No.4 College has submitted proposals to respondent No.3 office for regularization of services of the petitioner. After due verification, the matter was addressed to Government for regularization of services of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Rt.No.328, dated 15.10.1993. Accordingly, the Government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.494, dated 09.08.2004, has issued orders regularizing the services of the petitioner with prospective effect and the said G.O. was communicated to Respondent No.4 College duly regularizing the services of the incumbent vide proceedings of respondent No.2 dated 21.09.2004 and the regularization orders came into effect from the date of issuance of proceedings of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that at the time of issuance of regularization orders, Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) was not implemented. CPS scheme and dispense of regular pension orders were issued by the Government vide G.O. Ms.No.653, Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 22.09.2004, with retrospective effect from 01.09.2004. Further, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the Government vide Memo No.2775/CE/A2/2014, dated 13.02.2017, and said rejection was informed vide proceedings in Rc.No.314/Admn.1/2014, dated 26.02.2018, through the Correspondent of Respondent No.4 College. It is further contended that the cases of the individuals mentioned by the petitioner pertain to absorption of staff into grant-in-aid and not regularization of services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.328, dated 15.10.1997. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek parity with the said individuals and the respondents are justified in regularizing the services of the petitioner with prospective effect and therefore it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 13.12.2024 passed in W.P. No.6217 of 2024. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective counsel and perused the material on record. 6) As can be seen from the record, evidently, the petitioner was appointed as Part Time Lecturer (English) in respondent No.4 College on 07.01.1985 in un-aided post and he continued as such till the academic year 1991-1992. As respondent No.4 refused to permit the petitioner to perform his duties for the academic year 1992-1993 and orally terminated his services without any notice, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.20370 of 1993. As respondent No.4 refused to permit the petitioner to perform his duties for the academic year 1992-1993 and orally terminated his services without any notice, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.20370 of 1993. This Court allowed the said writ petition vide order dated 04.04.2002 directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner either retaining him in respondent No.4 College or to accommodate him in some other needy college, as per proceedings dated 09.10.1998 issued by the Government. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents have preferred writ appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 30.09.2002 in Writ Appeal No.1432 of 2002. Thereafter, in compliance of the said orders respondent No.2 has issued proceedings in Rc.No.333/ Admn.VII-1/94, dated 30.07.2003, instructing respondent No.4 to appoint the petitioner into services as Part Time Lecturer in the existing vacancy in the first instance and then to submit proposal for regularization of his services. Accordingly, respondent No.4 College took a decision on 11.08.2003 to engage the petitioner again as a Part Time Lecturer. 7) Here, it is pertinent to note that in its order dated 04.04.2022 in W.P. No.20370 of 1992, this Court duly taking note of the fact that the vacancy arose on 30.01.2002 on account of retirement of one P.Pratap Reddy, who worked as Lecturer in English, in respondent No.4 College, has directed the respondents to forward proposal to the competent authority for regularization of services of the petitioner. However, finally, the Government has issued proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.494, dated 09.08.2004, regularizing the services of the petitioner with prospective effect and consequential proceedings were issued on 21.09.2004 by respondent No.2 regularizing the services of the petitioner as English Lecturer. It is further seen from the record that in case of one Dr.R.V. Anuradha, who was a lecturer in English in Pragathi Maha Vidyalaya, Hyderabad, the Government has regularized the services of the individual from the date of arising of aided vacancy from 01.02.2000 on notional basis. In the said case, though the services of the individual were regularized w.e.f. 16.02.2001, but duly considering the fact that aided vacancy arose on 01.02.2000 consequent upon retirement of Estaphen on 31.01.2000, the services of the individual were regularized from 01.02.2000 on notional basis. In the said case, though the services of the individual were regularized w.e.f. 16.02.2001, but duly considering the fact that aided vacancy arose on 01.02.2000 consequent upon retirement of Estaphen on 31.01.2000, the services of the individual were regularized from 01.02.2000 on notional basis. In the case on hand, though the vacancy arose on 01.02.2002 consequent upon retirement of one Sri P. Pratap Reddy on 31.01.2002 and in spite of specific directions of this Court in W.P.No.20370 of 1993 vide order dated 04.04.2002 to send proposal for regularization of services of the petitioner in the place of Sri P. Pratap Reddy, the respondents took their own time to regularize the services of the petitioner depriving of his valuable right for pension under Revised Pension Rules, 1980, and for the delay on the part of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be penalized. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents ought to have regularized the services of the petitioner from the date of arising of vacancy i.e. 01.02.2002 in view of the directions of this Court in order dated 04.04.2002 in W.P. No.20370 of 1993 to regularize the services of the petitioner and as was done in case of one Dr.R.V.Anuradha. 8) Though the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the request of the petitioner was already rejected by the Government vide Memo No.2775/CE/A2/2014, dated 13.02.2017, and the said rejection was informed vide proceedings in Rc.No.314/Admn.1/2014, dated 26.02.2018, through the Correspondent of Respondent No.4 College, but the material on record do not indicate service of said rejection order on the petitioner enabling him to take necessary legal steps. Further, the order dated 13.02.2017 is also bereft of reasons. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader in this regard cannot be countenanced. 9) The material on record further reveals that the petitioner made a representation to the Director of Collegiate Education seeking grant of benefits on par with other lecturers whose services were also regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.328, Dated 15.10.1997. But, said authority is not competent to address the grievance of the petitioner. Therefore, in the above backdrop, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioner to make a suitable detailed representation to respondent No.1, upon which, respondent No.1 to consider the same without reference to earlier rejection order dated 13.02.2017. But, said authority is not competent to address the grievance of the petitioner. Therefore, in the above backdrop, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioner to make a suitable detailed representation to respondent No.1, upon which, respondent No.1 to consider the same without reference to earlier rejection order dated 13.02.2017. 10) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a suitable and detailed representation to respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, upon which, respondent No.1 shall consider the same and pass appropriate reasoned orders in the light of the observations made by this Court in paragraph No.7 of this order and without reference to earlier rejection order vide Memo No.2775/CE/A2/2014, dated 13.02.2017. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.