WP/2890/2021 of Ch Rangasai Bhatt Vs The Principal Accountant General (A and E) and 2 Others on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliet

'to issue a Writ or order [preferably ]in the nature of Writ ofMandamus and after calling for records pertaining to theimpugned Proc.P12llllR8a1/SP 415/201O-09/310359, dated21.1.21 passed by lst respondent declare the impugned order [of]counfing the quali-$ing service for [pension ]of the [petitioner ]as [32]years 7 months only as illegal, a.rbitrary, contrary to law, contraryto law, contrary to Telangana/AP Revised Pension Rules 1980 andunconstitutiona.l as violative of Articles 12, 14, 16 and 2l ofConstitution of India and consequently declare that the [petitioner]is entitled to count his qualifying service 33 [years, ]for the [purpose]of pension with eflect from 12.10.1970 i.e. the date of his initialappointment in the department as Artist or in the alternativelywith effect from 1.7.1982 on which date the petitioner wasregularly appointed as Stage Technician with all consequentialbenefrts and consequently direct the Respondents to count thequalifuing service as 33 years of service for the purpose ofcalculation of pension and other benefits of the [petitioner ][from ][the]above dates with alt consequential benefits lvith interest andconsequently declare the action of the 3'd respondent in PayinBinterest on delayed pension and gratuity only upto 4.92017 asitlegal and contrary to the [judgment ]of the Hon'ble APAdmirfstrative Tribunal order dated 22.4.2016 in OA No.383oof2OL4 and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent to [pay]interest on delayed payment of pension and gratuity till the date ofactual payment of the said pension to the petitroner rc 22.1O.2Owith all consequential benehts and pass such other order ororders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was sponsored byEmployment Exchange for being appointed as an Artist and he wasappointed as Artist vide order dated 12.10.1970 and he [worked]continuously as regular government servant u'ithout any break till thedate of his retirement i.e. on 31.01.2010 as Dcputy Director. Thefurther case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as StageTechnician vide order, dated 26.07.1976. Thereafter, the Governmentvide G.O.Ms.No.345, General Administration Department, dated30.06. 1982, converted the contingent post of Stage Tcchnician

into full time regular Last Grade Service post in thr: time scale ofRs.290-5-345-lO-425. Accordingly, the petitioner was regularlyappointed in the said post vide order, dated O2.O8.lgA2 and hisprobation was declared and his services were regularized with effectfrom 01.07. 1982 vide order dated 03.09.1984. Thereafter, he wasretired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on31.O1.201O. After his retirement, since the petitioner was not paid fullpension, he has made representations on 08.O6.2015 and 16. l1.2OlSto the 3.d respondent with a request to give him full pensionduly takinginto account the date of entrv of serviceas 31 .O7. 1976Further,the petitioner was subjected to disciplinaryproceedingsby theGovernment illegally vide G.O.Ms.No.82,GeneralAdministration Department, dated 26.O2.2OIO,and its consequent G.O.Ms.No.979 General .AdministrationDepartment, (SC.D), dated 26.02.2O1O, and challenging rhesame, he has hled O.A.No.383O of 2Ol4 before the AndhraPradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short "theTribunal")- The Tribunal vide order dated 22.04.2016 disposed of O.A.setting asicle the said G.Os and directed the respondents to releaseretirement benef-rts like Gratuiry and other retiral benefits $,ithintercst at the rate of 7oh per annum till the amount is paid_Hence, in pursuance of the orders of the Tribunal, the petitioner isentitled to get intercst at the rate of 7o/o on the delayed pension till thedate o[ receipt of such pension and the said pension u.as credited ro the account of the petitioner only in October, 2O20. Therefore, thepetitioner is entitled for (S3) years of qualifying service for the purposeof pension from 12.1O. 1970. Inspite of the same, the respondents havepassed the impugned order dated 2r.or.2o21 rejecting the claim of thepetitioner and counting the qualifying service for calculation ofpensionary ['benefits ]only from 1986. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Dr.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner, learned Government pleader appearing for respondentNos.2 and 3 and Sri K.BaIa Krishna, learned Standing Counselappearing for respondent No. l.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner that the petitioner was appointed on 12. ro. r970 as an Artistand has continuously worked and rendered the service till attainingthe age of superannuation i.e. 31.01.2010 after completion of (33)years of qualifying service. Therefore, as per Rule 13 of the TelanganaRevised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short "the pension Rules, I9gO.), hisservice is to be counted frorrr l2.lO.197O i.e. from the date of hisappointment for the purpose of pension. Inspite of the same,the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order without examiningthe case of the petitioner in proper perspective and arrived at a wrongconclusion in calculating the qualifoing service of the pe titioner as (32)years (o7) months, which is contrary to law. It is further submittedthat as per rhe Tribunal order, dated 22.04.2016, rhe pcritioner isentitled to get interest @ 7% on the delayed pension till the date of

payment, but the pension was credited to him only in the month ofOctober, 2020. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get interest onthe delayed pension upto October, 2O2O.ln support of his contentions,the delayed pension upto October, 2O2O.ln support of his contentions,he relied on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Courtin WP.Nos..2O69l, 2O7OO, 2O7Ot, 2O7O2 and 21086 ,rf 2O).2, dated29.11.20t8.in WP.Nos..2O69l, 2O7OO, 2O7Ot, 2O7O2 and 21086 ,rf 2O).2, dated29.11.20t8.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader while admitting the factthat the petitioner was appointed as an Artist on daily wage basisvide Memo No.31235/ E.O.E/69, dated I2.tO.l9ZO, contends thar hehas worked on daily wage basis from October, l97O to February, 1976nearly hve and half years. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed asStage Technician against contingent post vide MemoNo.27988/Admn.ll I 176, dated 26.07.1976. t ater, he has got regutarappointment as Stage Technician on O1.07.1982 and consequently,his services have been regularized with effect fronr 01.07.1982.Thereafter, he was promored as Stage Organizer on 17.04.1985. Thepost of Stage organiser is upgraded as Stage Organizer-cum-FolkDance Choreographer u,.e.f. 19. 12.1990. Further, the petitioner gotpromoted as Assisrant Dirccror (Song & Drama) on 21.03.1992.Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Depu[ Director on23.11.2004 and retired from service on 3 I .01.201O. Hence, he hasrendered tolal (27) ycars and (O7) months service from Ol.OZ.l9g2 to3i.O1-201O. Horrgevcr, the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No. lOO, FM(Pensions) DeparLment, dated 06.04.2010, has increaserl weightage of service from three to hve years. Hence, the total service countedin respect of the petitioner was (32) years (07) months, which is shortof (05) months for full (33) years of service. It is further contended thatas per the orders of the Tribunal, dated 22.04.2016, the respondentshave paid the pensionary benehts along with interestvide Proc.No. 15557/Estt.Cl/2015, dated 26.08.2020. It is furthercontended that the claim of the petitioner to treat the period from26.07.1976 to 3O.06. f 982 as Stage Technician as qualifying service forthe purpose of pensionary benefits along with his regular service, hasbeen rejected vide order in Memo No.7166/I&PR /2019,dated 30.1O.2O19, on the ground that the service rendered against thecontingent post does not quali$ to make upto five years tillO1.O4.1981 as required under G.O.Ms.No.9, Finance (Pen.l)Department, dated O8.01.1981 and that the orders issued inG.O.Ms-No.156, Finance (Pen.I) Department, dated 29.O4.1983 doesnot apply to [he case of the petitioner. Therefore, there are no meritsin the writ petition and hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

6. This Court has taken note of the submissions made theby respective Counsel.

7. A perusal of the record discloses that admittedly, the petitioner'*,a [s ][initially joined ]as Artist on daily wage basis vide MemoNo.31235/E.O.E/69, dated 12.10.1970, and worked as such, lromOctober, 197O to February, 1976. Subsequently, he was appointedas Stage Technician against the contingent post vide Memo No.27988/Adrwr.Il-l /76, dated 26.02 .t976. Later, he was appointedas Stage Technician on regular basis on Ol.OZ.1982 and his serviceswere regularized with effect from OI.OZ .I9a2. Further, he waspromoted as Stage Organizer vide Memo No.32516/.4drnn.V /21g4,dated 17.04.1985 and the said post was upgraded as Stage Organiser-cum-Folk Dance Choreographer w.e.f. 19. 12.lg9} vide G.O.Ms.No.677,General Administration (l&PR) Department, dated 19. 12. 1990. Furtherhe was promoted as Deputy Director (S&D) vide G.O.Ms.No.383,General Administration (l&PR) Department, dated 23. 1 1.2004 andretired on 3 1.O 1.20 10.

8. For better adjudication of the matter, it is relevant here to extractthe Rule 13, 14 and 29 of thre Telangana Revised pension Rules, 1980,which are as under:

Rule 13: Commencement of qualifying serwice:-

Subject to the provisrons of these rules, qualifying service of aGovernment servant shall commence lrom the date he takescharge of the post to which he is first appointed eithersubstantively or in an ofllciating or temporary capacity:

Rule 14: Conditions subject to crhich service qualifies:

1) The service of a Government servant shall not qualify unless hisduties and pay are regulared by the Government, or under conditionsdetermined by the Government.

2) For the purposes oI sub rule (l), the expression service means serviceunder the Government and paid by the Government from theConsolidated Fund of thc State but does not include service is a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifyingservice by the Government- Rule 29: Addition to qualifying Service:

Every Government senant who at the time of retirerrLent onsuperannuation, has put in a qualifying service of less than 33years, shall be cntitled to add to the qualifying service, for thepurpose of pensionary bencfits, the difference between 33 yearsand the qualifying sen'ice at the timc of superannuatior.r, suchdifference not exceeding three vears

9. In the decision rendered in WP.No.2O69l of 2Ol2 andbatch, dated 20.11.2018 relied on by learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court observed asunder:

"In view of the above, the contentions urged by the learnedGovernment Pleader that as the respondents renderedtemporary service from the date of their appointment till31-03. I990, the same could not be counted for the purposeof pensionar5r benefits as per Rule 13 of the Revised pensionRules as the respondents were not appointed eithersubstantively or in an olliciating or temporafy capacity; andpayment of daily honorarium would not come within themeaning of Rule 14 of the Revised Pension Rules as theservice rendered by the respondents during the said periodwas purely on temporary basis ald they were paid dailyhonorarium dunng the sard period, they have no right tocontinue or for future emploJ,'rnent, are unsustainable forthe reason that the service rendered by the respondentsfrom the date of their initial appointment tiII 3 1.O3. 1990comes within the ambit of service under sub-rule (l) of Rule14 of the Reviscd Pension Rules, as the said service wasunder the Government and daily honorarium was paid bythe Government from the consolidated funds of the State,the respondents rendered service in pensionableestablishmcnt. Therefore, the service rendered by therespondents on temporary daily honorarium basis tili ttreirregularization has to be counted as quali$ring serwice for thepurpose of pensionar5r benefrts, special grade sanction of8/ 16 years scales under automatic advancement scheme,etc."

10. In the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court supraand a close reading of the relevant Rules enumerated above, it isapparent that thc temporary service rendered by an employee shallalso be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionarybenefits. Thercforc, the contentions of the learned GovernmentPleader that the petirioner has rendered temporary service from thedate of his inirial app()intmcnr i.e. 12.lO.l9ZO to 01.07.19g2 and the

same could not be counted for pensionary beneifts as per Rule 13 ofthe Pension Rules, 198O, as he was not appointed eitherthe Pension Rules, 198O, as he was not appointed eithersubstantively or in an officiating and that the petitioner had workedonly on daily wages during the said period and the samr: could not beonly on daily wages during the said period and the samr: could not becounted for pensionary benefits and it does not confer any right forcontinuation or for future employment, are unsustainable for thereason that the service rendered by the petitioner from the date of hisinitial appointment i.e.12.10.1970 till 01.O7. 1982 i.e. the date onwhich his regular appointment was made, comes within the ambit ofcontinuation or for future employment, are unsustainable for thereason that the service rendered by the petitioner from the date of hisinitial appointment i.e.12.10.1970 till 01.O7. 1982 i.e. the date onwhich his regular appointment was made, comes within the ambit ofservice under Rule 14 of the Pension Rules, 1980, as the said servicewas rendered under the Government and the daily ho:rorarium waspaid by the Government from the consolidated funds of the State.Further, the petitioner has rendered service in pensionableFurther, the petitioner has rendered service in pensionableestablishment. Therefore, the service rendered b:l him froml2.LO.l97O i.e. the.date of his initial appointment has to be countedl2.LO.l97O i.e. the.date of his initial appointment has to be countedas qualif,iing service for the purpose of pensionary benefits in terms ofRule 14 of the Pension Rules, 1980 and in the light of the commonorder of the Division Bench of this Court supra. Hence, theimpugned proceedings are liable to be set aside .Rule 14 of the Pension Rules, 1980 and in the light of the commonorder of the Division Bench of this Court supra. Hence, theimpugned proceedings are liable to be set aside .

11. Further, the another contention of the pctitioner is that as perthe order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.383O of 2014,dated 22.04.2O 16, he is cntitled for intercst on the pensionarybenefits cannot be countenanced lor thc reason that tht: respondentsin their counter affidavit statcd that the pensionary bcnehts which were payable to the petitioner have already been paid to him on04.O9.2017 itself. The same is not disputed by the petitioner by frlingany reply.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed.The impugned proceedings in P t2 / l / R84 I / Sp4 I S / 20 tO-09 / 3 1 0359,dated 2l.O'1.202 1, issued by respondent No. I are hereby set aside.The respondents are directed to count the qualifying service of thepetitioner as (33) years of service from l2.lO.l9ZO i.e. initiaj date ofhis appointment for the purpose of calculation of pension and otherbenefits of the petitioner and pay the benehts as per his entitlementwithin a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.

Miscellaneous pelitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.No costs' No costs'

sD/-v. HAR' PRASASSISTANTGSECTIOFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To, 1. The Principal Accountant General (A and E), Telangana, Hyderabad 500-0042. Tfre Principal Secretary [to ][Government ][of ][Telangana, The State ][of]Telangand, lnformation [and Public ][Relations ][Department, Secretariat,]Hyderabad 1. The Principal Accountant General (A and E), Telangana, Hyderabad 500-0042. Tfre Principal Secretary [to ][Government ][of ][Telangana, The State ][of]Telangand, lnformation [and Public ][Relations ][Department, Secretariat,]Hyderabad

3. Tlie Commissroner, [lnformation and Public Relations Department, Samachar]Bhavan, AC Guards, [Hyderabad, Telangana]Bhavan, AC Guards, [Hyderabad, Telangana]

4. One CC to [lt//s. ]K [Lak'shmi ][Narasimha, Advocate ][OPUC]

5. Two CCs to [GP ][for ][Services ][lll, ][High Court for the State of Telangana, at]Hvderabad IOUTIHvderabad IOUTI

6. Ohe CC to Sri K Balaknshna. [Advocate ][OPUC]

7. Two CD Copies

TJBS

II

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

ORDERWP.No.289O [of ][2021]

2..turt\], :,;It :l'1 2 i'iilrr :i'1il Jiz'

PARTLY ALLOWING [THE ][WRIT ][PETITION]

WITHOUT [COSTS.]

6\Ap1

iIlI