Allowed

T. Yakaiah v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC26 Apr 2022WP/3251/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition was filed challenging the delay in granting the Telangana Increment to High Court employees. The Court observed that the State Government had granted this special pay to all its employees and Judicial Officers from August 2014, excluding only High Court staff. It held that this exclusion was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and directed the

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 13.08.2014 for Petitioner and other High Court employees from August 2014 within 90 days.

T. Yakaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FoR THE ST{TF 9F TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD. (Speciat Originat urrisJiciioni"

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND rWrNriV rWb

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHTEF JUS.Tlg_E SATTSH CHANDRA SHARMA THE HoN,BLE SRI JUSTcI}?HINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT P ETI TION N :3251 F 2021

¶6

Between;

¶7

Lr", 3;,1 "?|";S,::ffii,tfl ,?f$#fl: *ijlt:,f s ista n t Re s i ska r,

¶8

AND

¶9

..,PETITIONER

¶10

1 The slate of rerangana, Rep by its by its principar Secretary to the Finance uepa rtment, Secreta riat B uiid in'gs, HvO"ij tiro.'""' ""'

¶11

2 The _State of Telangana, Rgp, Oy it,s.the principal Secretary to the Law uepartment, Secretariat Buiidings, Hvouiuf"il" """'

¶12

3 High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, rep. by the Hon,ble Registrar General.

¶13

4 High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, rep. by the Hon,ble Reg istrar(Ad ministration )

¶14

(cr-is No.325112021\amended as per court order dt.26-4-2022 vide rA No.1/20 22inwp

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit rireo ineiewitn, tnu ii,bn'cJrrt ,.y ou pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry o rie in the natuie of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of Respondent No.3 and 4 in non implementing the G.o.Ms.No.23, Finance Department, dated.13/Bl2o14 by qangtionino Telangana speciar rncrement w.e.t.13r\t2o14 instead of the dld.o1/o1/2019 to the Employees of the High court for the state of ielangana Hyderabad as irregar, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair, unrairyfur, unco nstitutio na l, perverse, mockery and in violation of the Article lq, z1 ana Coo-a of the constitution of lndia and against to the catena of the Judgment. o? un npu* Court and this Hon'ble Court.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to implement the G.O.lvls.No.23, dtd:1310812014 by sanctioning the Telangana Special lncrement to the Employees of the High Court for the State of Telangana from the date of 131812014 instead of the date of 0110112019 forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR FINANCE/GP FOR SERVICES-I

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS/ GP FOR SERVICES.I

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI ANAND KUMAR KAPOOR, SC for TSHC

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

H RA THE HON'BLE THE JUSTICE AND I S TItE HON'BLESRI JUSTICEAB HINAND WRIT PETITIO NNo .3251of 202L

¶25

ORDERT^{tr"' ri'e rto^btet|tectue[hsncesdnshchandtushod^o]} retrred^Assistant' before^{this Court' a} The Pettttoner of the^{High Court of Judicatureat Hyderabad'has} Regtstrar fiied^the present^{writ Petitionclaiming imPiementationof} Department,^dated G.O.Ms.No.23,^{Finance(HRM'IIl)} i3.08.2014,^{issuedby the Governmentof Telangana granting} to the Increment" special^{increment knownas'Telangana} empioyees^{serving the Government of Telangana'} The undisputed^{facts of the case reveal that the petitioner} was earrier^{serving as an Assistant Registrarat the High court} of Judicature^{at Hyderabad and has att'ainedthe ageof} superannuation^{on 30 09 2019 The undisputed facts further} reveal that^{the State of Telangana came into existenceas 29m} State^{in the Union of India with effect from 02'06'2014by virtue} The^State of the^{AndhraPradesh ReorganisationAct' 2014} view^the in its^{own wisdom'keePingrn} Government, employees^{who have participatedin the} contrlbudon^{of the} on of^{separateStateof Telangana'} :1^" movement^{for creati} ant^{them ,,TelanganaIncrement''TheState} policY^{decisionto gr}

¶26

¶27

Government finally issued G.O.Ms.No.23, Finance (HRM.lll) Department, dated 13.08.2014, and the same is reproduced as

¶28

under:-

¶29

"GOVERNMENT^{OF TELANGANA} ABSTRACT

¶30

Public Services - Formation of Telangana State Special Increment - Sanction - Orders - Issued.

¶31

FINANCE (HRM.III) DEPARTMENT

¶32

G.O,MS.No.23: Date: 13.O8.2O 14, Read the following:

¶33

The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2014, No 6 ol2Ol4.

¶34

The Gazette of India No 560, dated: March 04,2014.

¶35

-oOo-

¶36

The State of Telangana was formed and came into existence as the 29th State in the Union of India on and from 2nd June, 2014 under the A.P.Reorganisation Act, 2074.

¶37

Several sections of the society have voluntarily participated in the movements demanding the Central and State Governments for creation of the State of Telangana. Non-Gazetted, Gazetted and other classes of employees have played a important role in building up the movement in a peaceful arrd democratic manner and in mobilising t}re support of the nation for the just demand. The contribution of the employees community was immense in the emergence of the State of Telangana.

¶38

¶39

In token of appreciation of the role played by the employee community, the Government have decided to sanction a special increment by rra:l;re Telangana Increment to the employees to mark fullilment of the longstanding demand for formation of separate State of Telangana.

¶40

Accordingly, Government hereby order sanction of T elangana Increment in the nature of a special pay equivalent to the immediate previous increment drawn in their current pay scale, which would.be a permanently fixed amount during the entire period of service (like earlier famitg planning incrementJ, to the foliowing categories of employees serving the Government of Telangana.

¶41

a) Al1 employees of the State Govemment who are in receipt of pay in a regular pay scale in the RPS, 2OlO /UGC / AICTE pay scales. b) Employees of the Loca-1 Bodies, Agricultural Market Commitees, Zilla Grandhalaya Samasthas and Aided Institutions, who are in receipt of pay in a regular pay scale in the RPS,2O10. Work-charged establishment in receipt of pay in a regular pay scale in the RPS, 2r]10. d) Teaching ald Non-Teaching Staff of Universities who are drawing pay in a regular scale of pay in the^RPS, 2OlO IUGC I AICTE pay scales.

¶42

¶43

¶44

The above sanction sha11 a-lso extend to such of the above categories of employees who are presently not ordered to serve provisionally in connection with the alfairs of the State of Telangana, but are finaliy allotted to the State of Telangana in terms of the provisions of the AP. Reorga,nisation Act, 2014, on and with effect from the date/month of theu reporting in the Government of Telangana pursuant to such linal allotment.

¶45

Tt.e Telangana Increment (special pay), as mentioned in pa-ra (3) supra, shall be ar amount equivalent to the immediate previous increment drawn in the current pay scale of the post held by the employee in the Revised Pay Scales 2010/ corresponding UGC/AICTE pay scates.

¶46

Tlre Tetangana Increment shall be sanctioned by the authority who is competent to sanction arr increment in the pay scale admissible to the employee, through al office order/proceedings on the basis of this G.O.

¶47

The Telangana Increment shall be shown in the pay bill separately and distinctly as a special pay.

¶48

T}re Telangana Increment (special pay) shall be a permalently fixed amount separately attached to the pay during the entire period of service and shall not be reckoned for the purposes of fixation of pay on promotion or otherwise in future.

¶49

¶50

lO. No a-llowance^{such as DA, HRA, CCA or any other} allowance shall^{be admissible onthe Tetangana} Increment.

¶51

1 1. The Telangana^{Incrementsha'll not be takeninto} account for the^{purposesof fixationof pensionand} pensiona4r benefits^{such as Gratuityand} commutation^of Pension.

¶52

Tlre Tetongana^{Increment shall be payablestarung} with the salary^{for the monthof August,2014'}

¶53

The expenditure^{on the above specialpay sha-1lbe} debited to^{the Head of Account to which the present} pay and allowances^{are being debited'}

¶54

All the^DePartments of Secretariat^andHead of a.ll Universities^are of Departments,^Registrar requested to^{take necessary action accordingly'}

¶55

(BY ORDER IN THE^{NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF TELANGANA)}

¶56

V. NAGI REDDY PRINCIPAL^{SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT}

¶57

The undisputed^{facts of the caseaiso reveal that ali the} employees of^{the State Government were paid "Telangana} lncrement"^{startingwith the salary for the month of August'} 2014. However,^{in respect of employees like the petitioner'who} are allocated^{and servingthe High Court for the State of} Telangana,^{weregranted"TelanganaIncrement"with effectfrom} 01.o 1.2019.

¶58

¶59

The sole grievance of the petitioner is that once "Telangana Increment,, has been granted to the employees of the State Government, all the Judicial Officers serving the State of Telangana as well as the District Court employees with effect from 13.08.2014, the employees of the High Courr for rhe State of Telangana are also entitled for grant of ,,Telangana Increment,, with effect from 13.08.2014 instead of O1.O1.2019.

¶60

A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed by the High Court for the State of Telangana. It has been stated that a decision was taken at the highest level in the High Court to grant "Telangana Increment,, with effect from 01.01.2019 i.e., the date on which the High Court for the State of Telangana came into existence and earlier there was unified High Court for both the States i.e., High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State ofAndhra pradesh.

¶61

Learned Standing Counsel for the High Court has vehemently argued before this Court that the employees of the High Court cannot be treated at par with the employees serving the District Courts or with the Judicial Officers, as they are governed by different set of rules. He has also stated that it is not a case of discrimination, as the employees of the High Court are a class apart.

¶62

¶63

¶64

This Court has carefully gone through the writ petition, the counter affidavit as well as the reply fiied by the petitioner to '"he^{counter affidavit.}

¶65

The undisputed facts of the case make it very clear that the State Government took a policy decision to grant "Telangana Increment' to all its employees, irrespective of their rank, starting with the sa1ary for the month of August, 2014 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 13.08.2014. The aforesaid G.O has been implemented in respect of other organisations owned and controlled by the State Government and "Telangana Increment" starting with the sa1ary for the month of August, 2014 was also granted to all the Judicial Officers allocated and serving the State of Telangana. The other important aspect of the case is that the "Telangana Increment (special pay)" is a permanently fixed amount separately attached to the pay during the entire period of service and is not taken into account for the purposes of fixation of pay on promotion or otherwise in future. It is aiso not taken into account while calculating DA, HRA, CCA or for the purposes of fixation of pension. It is a one time incentive given to all the employees of the State of Telangana.

¶66

The Service Rules^governing the^{employees of the High} Court for the State of Telangana are^{known as "ServiceRulegof}

¶67

¶68

¶69

the High Court for the^{State of Telangana-2O19'(for short "the} Rules"). Rule 21 of the^{Rules provides that the Fundamentai} Rules, the Subsidiary^{Rules thereunder, CiviiService} Regulations and other^{ruies applicableto the employees serving} the State Government^{of Telanganawill be applicable to the} members who are^{serving the High Court for the State of} Telangana.

¶70

Rule 21 of the Rules is^{reproduced as under:-}

¶71

"Rule^- 21:- Other^{Condltlonsof Servlce: '(1) The} Fundamental Rules, the^{Subsidiary Rules thereunder,Civil} Services Regulations and^{other rules applicabletothe} employees of the Government^{of Telangana, shall govern the} member of the service^{in so far as they are not inconsistent} with these rules.

¶72

Provided that except in^{regard toleave, salary,} pensions and gratuities, the Chief Justice^{shall exercise the} powers vested in the Governor under^{any of theaforesaid} rules:

¶73

(2) Where any member of the^service who,^immediatelv prior to the 1"t November, 1956, was in the sewice^{of the} former Hyderabad High Court, he/she shall continue^{to be} governed by the corresponding pension and leave rules applicable to him/her immediately prior to that date subject to the rules and orders issued by the Government in that behalf from time to time.

¶74

(3) The posts in the service of the High Court for the State of Telangana shown in Column No. (1) of Schedule-lll shalL correspond to the posts in the Secretariat of Government of Telangana specihed in Column No.2 thereol"

¶75

¶76

¶77

Itisanundisputedfactthatalltheemployeesservingthe State of^{Telangana, whether they are serving in aState} GovernmentUndertakingortheyaredirectlyemployedbythe State^{of Telangana, are receiving "TelanganaIncrement" barring} the emplo-vees^{of the High Courtfor the State of Telangana} alone.^{The employeesserving in the District Courts' though are} governed by^{different set of rules' are certainly part of the} judicial system^{and the JudicialOfficers are also part of the} Judiciary^{whichis serving the Stateof Teiangana'}

¶78

InD.S.Nakarav.Unionoflnillal,theHon,blesupremeCourt has held^{that the classificationhasto be based,as is well} princiPle settled,onsomerationalprincipleandtherational must have^{nexus tothe objectssought tobe} achieved. ParagraPh^{42 of theaforesaid Judgment is reProduced} AS under:-

¶79

-42. \t 1l appears to be undisputable'^{as it does to Irs} that the^{pel'rsionersfor the purpose of pensionbenefits form a} class. would^{its upward revision permit a homogeneous class} tobe<lividedbyarbitrarilyfixinganeligibilitycriteria unrelated^{topurpose ofrevision' and would such} classification^{be foundedon somerational principle?The} classification^{has to be based'as is well settled' on some} rational^{principle and the rational principle must have nexus} to the^{objectssought to be achieved We have set outthe}

'(1983)^{I scc 305}

It)

objects underlying the payment of^pension. If^{the State} considered it necessary to liberalise the^{pensionscheme,we} find no rational principle behind it for granting these^benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that^date simultaneously denying the same to^{those who} retired^priorto that date. If the liberalisation was considered^{necessary for} augmenting social security in old age to^{governmentservants} then those who, retired earlier cannot be worst off than those who retire later. Therefore, this division which classified pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it would be discriminatory. To illustrate, take two persons, one retired^just a day prior and another a day^just succeeding the specified date. Both^$,ere in the same pay bracket, the average emolument {as the^same and both had put in equal number of^years ol service.^{H olv} does a fortuitous circumstance of retiring a da1' earlier or^a day later n'ill permit totall)'unequal treatment in the matter^01' pension? One retiring a da) earlier s,ill have to be subject to ceiling of Rs 8 100 p.a. and average emolument to be^\'orked out on 36 months' salar-"* u,hile the other will havc a ceiling of Rs.12,000 p.a. and average emolument will be computed on the basis of last 10 months' average. The artificial division stares into face and is unrelated to any principle and whatever principle, if there be any, has absolutely no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by liberalising the pension scheme. In fact this arbitrary division has not only no nexus to the liberalised pension scheme but it is counter-producrive and runs counter to the whole gamut of pension scheme. The equal treatment guaranteed in Article 14 is wholly violated inasmuch as the pension rules being statutory in character, since the specilied date, the rules accord differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter of commutation of pension. A 48 hours' difference in matter of

¶84

¶85

retirement lvould have a traumatic^{effect. Division is thus} both arbitrary and unprincipled.^{Therefore,the classification} does not stand the test of Article^14."

¶86

The above view was reiterated by the^{Hon'bleSupreme} Court in the case of x.c.fajal^{v. Uuion of India2 and suchet singh} Yadav w. Uniou of India3

¶87

Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid^{judgments of the} Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the considered^{opinion of this Court,} non-grant of "Telangana Increment" to^{the employees of the} High Court lor the State of^{Telanganaat par with the employees} of the District Judiciary and Judicial^{Officers iscertainly} discriminatory, arbitrary and^{violative of Articles 14 and 2loI} the Constitution of India. Once the^{High Court has taken a} decision to grant "Telangana^{Increment" to its employees,it} should have been^{granted from the date it has beengranted to} other employees of the State^Government.

¶88

Resultantly, the writ^{petition is allowed. The respondents} are directed to implement^{G.O.Ms.No.23, Finance (HRM'lll)} Department, dated 13.08.2014,^{in respect of the petitioneras} well as other employees of^{the High Court for the Stateof} Telangana from the^{date it has been made applicable to other}

¶89

r(l0l.l)ISCC 7?" * > 'tl0lqt ll SCC 510

¶90

¶91

¶92

employees of the^{State Government i.e., with effect from the} salary for the^{monthof August, 2O14.}

¶93

Let the aforesaid order^{passed by this Courtbe} implemented within^{a period of ninety (90) days from today'}

¶94

Pending miscellaneous^{applications,if any, shallstand}

¶95

closed. There^{sha1l be no order as to costs.}

¶96

SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY'

! ll,,

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretaryto the FinanceDepartment' Stateof Telangana'} Secretariai Buildings,^Hyderabad.

¶102

z. ine Fiincipal Secr6taryio^{the Law Department, State of Telangana'} Secretariai Buildings,^Hyderabad.

¶103

1. i;;'R;si;i;,^{c""""iii, irisn court for tne Stateof relansana.'Hvderabad'} ;. ii;; H6i;irii inominlitra[ion),^{Hish court for the State of relangana'} Hvderabad.

¶104

s i,Jrl,"cc, ii the Gp^{for services-t,High court for the state of Telangana.} tOUTl

¶105

o. iir"o'dCr to the^{Gp for Finance, High Court for the State of Telangana [oUT]} ;. iffi 6d; i; iii;^{cp ro, r-u*' r"iisiitiu" Affairs, Hish court for the State of} Telangana [OUT]

¶106

a. o"nJ'ct io bH^{p'neaHnKARcHIKKUDU,} {d-vqca!9-tofil^cl. .^. s. o;; cc 6 SRi^{ANAND kulnnKAPooR, SC for TSHC toPUCl} 10.Two C.D. CoPies. 1 1 . One Spare^CoPY. MRC

(_/

HIGH COURT

OAfEOt26l0412022

STAT€
1 )
[? t[1 202 t'',)

¶112

ORDER

¶113