Allowed

The Zilla Parishad, Ranga Reddy District, v. K.Naga Raj

Telangana HC9 Sept 2014WP/12687/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order directing an employee to report to his parent department. The court held that under a 2009 Government Order, failing to exercise repatriation options automatically cancelled the lien in the parent department, making the current department competent to settle pensionary benefits.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal order was modified; the Commercial Tax Department was directed to settle pensionary benefits using service rendered as leave.

The Zilla Parishad, Ranga Reddy District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.12687 of 2014 and

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.13498 of 2014

¶5

C O M M O N - O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

¶6

W.P.No.12687 of 2014 is filed challenging the order, dated 28.10.2013, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal), in O.A.No.689 of 2013 with V.M.A.No.756 of 2013 and M.A.No.1546 of 2013.

¶7

2. The applicant was originally appointed as Junior Assistant in Zilla Praja Parishad, Rangareddy district on 02.09.1978. Accordingly, he joined duty on 04.09.1978. At his request, he was deputed to work in the Head Office i.e., Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development on 15.02.1990. On 17.05.1995, he was transferred to Commercial Tax Department at is request, without the knowledge of Zilla Praja Parishad. On 19.05.2009, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.144, Finance (FR.I) Department, dated 19.05.2009, calling for the options of the employees for repatriation to their respective parent departments, granting two months time that is up to 17.07.2009. The petitioner has not exercised his option in terms of G.O.Ms.No.144, Finance (FR.I) Department, dated 19.05.2009, within the time prescribed. Though it is contended by the applicant that he had no knowledge, but the fact remains the applicant has not exercised his option to go to his parent department. Subsequently, the applicant made a representation to the Government. But the Government rejected

¶8

the same. Challenging the same, the applicant filed Original Application No.4791 of 2010, which was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the applicant for repatriation in terms of FR 14(A), 15(ii), G.O.Ms.No.610, dated 30.12.1985 and G.O.Rt.No.1316 dated 23.06.1998. Against the same, the Commercial Tax Department filed W.P.No.2442 of 2011 and it was dismissed. Therefore, he was relieved from Commercial Tax Department and was directed to report before the Rural Development. A Review Petition was filed by the Rural Development Department, in which a corrigendum was issued by the Tribunal vide order, dated 13.12.2011, passed in Review M.A.No.2568 of 2010 in O.A.No.4791 of 2010, modifying the relieving order to report at Zilla Praja Parishad instead of Rural Development. Accordingly, on 15.01.2012, he reported to Zilla Praja Parishad, Rangareddy. It seems he was accepted by the Zilla Parishad and he retied on 31.07.2012. Both the Commercial Tax Department and the Zilla Parishad passed the orders rejecting the case of the applicant. Challenging the said action, O.A.No.689 of 2013 was filed. Vide impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the proceedings No.A2/272/2012 dated 14.11.2012 issued by sixth respondent therein and the proceedings No.DC(CT)’s Ref.No.E2/376/2009 dated 03.01.2013 issued by the fourth respondent therein and directed the second respondent therein and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Rangareddy district to accept the joining report of the applicant and take further consequential action to regulate his pay and allowances and other pensionary benefits. Challenging the same, the W.P.No.12687 of

¶9

2014 is filed and challenging the order, dated 13.12.2011, passed in Review M.A.No.2568 of 2010 in O.A.No.4791 of 2010, W.P.No.13498 of 2014 is filed.

¶10

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner contended that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.144, Finance (FR.I) Department, dated 19.05.2009, the lien in the Zilla Parishad is deemed to have been cancelled and therefore, he becomes an employee in the department, in which he was working as employee as has not exercised his option to go to his parent department and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶11

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/applicant contended that the dispute of the applicant is only with regard to the retirement benefits, as he retired on 31.07.2012; that his pension papers have not been processed and his pension has not been fixed; the fact that he worked in the department is not in dispute and therefore, he is entitled for all the retirement benefits for the service rendered by him and hence, he prays to give a direction to the concerned department to settle his pensionary benefits.

¶12

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II, Telangana State, contended that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.144, Finance (FR.I) Department, dated 19.05.2009, the applicant has not exercised his option, and therefore, the last place where he was working by the date as prescribed in the Government Order, that department is liable to pay that amount.

¶13

6. Admittedly, the applicant worked in Zilla Praja Parishad,

¶14

Rangareddy district for a period of 12 years. Thereafter, he was transferred to Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, in which department he worked for about five years. Thereafter, he worked in the Commercial Tax Department. G.O.Ms.No.144, Finance (FR.I) Department, dated 19.05.2009 was issued calling for the options from the employees to go to their parent units, within the period of time specified in the Government Order and the option has not been exercised by the applicant. Therefore, in terms of the Government Order, the lien in the parent department is deemed to have been cancelled and he was deemed to have been absorbed in the department, in which he was working. Note II in FR 14-B as amended by G.O.Ms.No.144, Finance (FR.I) Department, dated 19.05.2009, reads as follows:

¶15

“Note-II: The existing employees who are working in the departments other than parent departments shall exercise option within two (2) months from the date of issue of these orders and if no option is exercised within two (2) months the employee is deemed to have opted to continue in the other service and his lien in the parent department shall automatically terminated. However, after exercising the option within two (2) months they may be allowed four (4) months to get relief from other department and to join in parent department i.e., total six (6) months time shall be allowed”.

¶16

A perusal of the above note clearly goes to show that if an employee fails to exercise his option, the lien in his parent department will be automatically terminated. When his lien was terminated, automatically the question of settling the retirement benefits by the C.E.O, Rangareddy District does not arise as he has no authority to pass any orders. In view of the fact that by the date of issuance of the Government Order, admittedly, the

¶17

applicant was working in the Commercial Tax Department, the Commercial Tax Department alone is competent to settle the pensionary benefits of the applicant. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is modified directing the respondent Nos.4 & 5 herein to settle the pensionary benefits of the applicant as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by regularising his service from 26.11.2011 to 31.07.2012, treating the said period as leave that may be available to the applicant.

¶18

7. Accordingly, W.P.No.12687 of 2014is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in W.P.No.12687 of 2014, shall stand closed.

¶19

8. Since W.P.No.12687 of 2014 is allowed, no order is required to be passed in W.P.No.13498 of 2014. Accordingly, W.P.No.13498 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in W.P.No.13498 of 2014, shall stand closed.

¶20

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶21

_______ JUSTICE ANIS

¶22

Date: 09.09.2014 sr

The Zilla Parishad, Ranga Reddy District, v. K.Naga Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Zilla Parishad, Ranga Reddy District, v. K.Naga Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ram Singh Vs Smt.Guguloth Laxmi Bai , Ramani Bai

P.Srinivas, Vs Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Sr Nagar Branch

The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Vs C.Muralidhar

M/s Tadikonda Ramulu Vs Government of India

Takkalapally Narayana Rao, Vs Union of India

Inaganti Venkateswara Rao, Vs Corporation Bank