Disposed

Mohd.Jaffar v. The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC14 Dec 2012WP/15440/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a retired workcharged employee seeking pension. The Court held that Section 16 of the Act does not apply to the petitioner. Recall on record to make representation to Board and Government for pension consideration within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Board and Government to dispose petitioner's representation for pensionary benefits within eight weeks of receipt.

Mohd.Jaffar Vs The Govt of Ap., rep.by its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15440 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri S.Gopal Rao, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.K.Jayaprakash the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1, 5 and 6.

¶5

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Pump Operator on 20.05.1961 in the office of the fourth respondent and his services were provincialised by the competent authority of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (for short Board) on 14.12.1977. In other words, from that date onwards his pay and emoluments were paid by the Board. Subsequently, the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2003. Thereafter he applied for pension and papers were also submitted. However, the Board authorities stopped payment of pension. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition in substance for a direction for releasing his pensionary benefits and other retirement benefits.

¶6

3. The second respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner joined as an NMR worker on 20.05.1961 and thereafter he was appointed as a Pump Operator on 01.10.1971 under workcharged establishment and his services were provincialised and he attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2003. The stand of the second respondent is that the petitioner falls within the category of workcharged establishment workers and is not eligible for pension. It is also stated that though the Board which is the final governing authority of the second respondent granted approval for exercising option under G.O.Ms.No.130 dated

¶7

18.03.1981 and payment of some benefits to the workcharged establishment, it did not approve payment of pensions and pensionary benefits and instructed that the matters may be placed before the Government for its consideration and orders.

¶8

4. The relevant resolution of the Board is dated 31.03.1983 which was passed on an office note put up therein with regard to various items in agenda for approval placed before it. Item No.10 thereof is the relevant agenda dealing with workcharged establishment and it reads as follows.

¶9

“Workcharged establishment – Treating the workcharged establishment who have completed 10 years of service as Govt. Employees – Extending similar benefits to the workcharged employees of A.P.H.B. – Reg.

¶10

i) The option should be exercised as per G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 18-3-1981 by the workcharged Employees of the Board who have retired or to retire in future within a further period of 3 months with effect from today.

¶11

ii) Retirement or Death benefits of the deceased employees may be paid as given by the Government though the said employees could not give options. The number of such employees in the Board is only one.

¶12

iii) The Government orders issued in respect of the Government employees from time to time …….from such order be extended to the work charged employees establishment of the A.P. Housing Board who come under the perview of the G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 29-3-1979.

¶13

iv) Regarding extension of pensions & pensionary benefits the details may be ascertained from the Government for consideration in respect of the workcharged establishment.”

¶14

It may be noted that though the Board has considered and granted some benefits to the work charged establishment, Item No.4 of the above resolution would show that the Board did not approve for

¶15

payment of pensions and pensionary benefits to that staff and instructed that the matter be placed before the Government in substance.

¶16

5. The contention of Sri A.K. Jayaprakash is that unless the Board approves pension cannot be sanctioned as petitioner cannot be treated as a regular employee of the Board by applying Section 16 of the A.P. Housing Board Act, 1956 (for short Act), which deals with applications of Services Rules and certain other rules to the Officers and servants of the Board appointed under Section 17 thereof. It is brought to my notice that Government have not taken any decision in that matter.

¶17

6. The other plea of the petitioner is that several other employees similarly situated like him were paid pensions after their retirement but Sri Jayaprakash says that show cause notices were issued for withdrawing those pensions and those employees have approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and succeeded and the matters are now pending in this Court in several writ petitions. It may be noted that the above proceedings of the Board clearly show that it did not approve payment of pensions to workcharged establishment and the authority of the Board in that behalf can be said to be final in view of Section 18 of the Act as Section 16 thereof is not applicable to the petitioner inasmuch as he belongs to workcharged establishment. Hence, the fact that some others have been paid pensions though they were not eligible is not a ground for releasing pensionary benefits to the petitioner as he has to prove his case independently and which he failed to prove it. The fact that no interim orders have also been granted in the writ petitions filed against the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in such matters is

¶18

also therefore not a ground.

¶19

7. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 18.03.1981 would show that by itself cannot confer any pensionary benefits on the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel says that by his application dated 22.08.1981 he exercised the option mentioned in the said G.O.Ms.No.130 and therefore he is to be treated as a regular Government employee but it is seen that there is nothing on record as to what happened to this application dated 22.08.1981 of the petitioner and the petitioner even did not mention about it in his writ affidavit. He also placed reliance upon proceedings of the office of the Chief Engineer dated 18.12.1979 to show that he became a regular employee of the Government. This does not support his contention as it only shows that certain NMR workers should be absorbed in the workcharged establishment.

¶20

8. The respondents 3 and 6 who are officers of the State Audit Department filed counter stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.75 Housing (H.I.) Department dated 29.07.1994 pension papers have been processed. It may however be noted that G.O.Ms.No.75 referred to supra applies only to regular employees of the Board who are treated as Government servants under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 (for short Act). The petitioners case for the aforesaid reasons does not fall under Section 16. Hence that cannot help the petitioner. It should be noted that whether pension is to be granted or not can be said to be a policy matter which the Board and the Government have to decide it. In the above circumstances it follows that the petitioner has failed to establish any right to seek the relief claimed in this writ petition.

¶21

9. The petitioner has now produced his option form dated 22.08.1981 which he says entitles him now to all the pay scales and pensions of the Government servants. The petitioner’s counsel also requested to give the petitioner an opportunity to make a representation to the Board and the Government for claiming the pension on the basis of his option exercised. The petitioner has been in service since 1961 and he retired in 1983. In these circumstances it shall be open for the petitioner to make a representation for pensionary benefits and as and when such representation is made the authorities of the Board and the Government shall dispose of the same and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶22

10. The learned counsel for petitioner says that an amount of Rs.72,092/- has been received by the petitioner towards retiral benefits and Sri A.K. Jayaprakash says that it is more than that amount. The complete particulars are not before the Court. This matter may be settled by the Board on receipt of a representation from the petitioner.

¶23

11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶24

________________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 14^th December 2012 CVRK

Mohd.Jaffar v. The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Jaffar v. The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.A.P. Rao Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

P. Seetharamulu, Vs The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

Nirmala Babu Vs the Mang.Dir.a.P.S.S.C.Corp.Ltd.Hyd.

P.Govindiah, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Jacob Mudi Vs The Deputy Inspector General / Nz

Lanka Sankara Rao Vs Godavari Grameena Bank