Dismissed

P.Laxmi Narsaiah, v. Prl.Secy., Panchayat Raj Dept., 5 Others

Telangana HC12 Dec 2023WP/38711/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Panchayat Secretary, originally in Last Grade Service, was redeployed to a ministerial post. Upon attaining age 58, he was retired. Holding that he remained in the ministerial cadre without opting to revert to his parent department, the Court dismissed his writ petition challenging his retirement age.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition declared devoid of merits and dismissed without costs to the petitioner.

P.Laxmi Narsaiah, Vs Prl.Secy., Panchayat… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 38711 OF 2017

¶7

Between

¶8

P.Laxmi Narsaiah, S/o. Narayana, Aged about 58 years, Occ Panchayat Secretary Gr.lV. Grampanchayat, Bhupalapatnam, Choppadandi Mandal, Karimnagar District - 5o5 214

¶9

...'ETITI.NER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchyat Raj Bs Rural Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health and Family Welfare Department, . Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The District Collector, (Panchayat Wing), Karamnagar District. 4 The District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar District. 5 The District Medical & Health Officer, Karimnagar District 6 The lvlandal Parishad Development Officer, Choppadandi. Karimnagar District

¶14

...RESP.NDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of IVANDAMUS to declare the impugned orders issued by the 3rd respondent in Lr. No. A3/3105/2017-Pts, dated 24.10.2017 and the consequential proceedings issued by the 4th respondent in Proc.No.Bl 17812O16 dated 01.11.20'17 where in retiring the petitioner from service at the age of 58 years, though he is working in last grade service and redeployed as Panchyat Secretary and entitled to continue in the service till attaining the age of superannuation of (60) years is illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutional, and set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner to continue in service as Panchayat Secretary till attaining the age of superannuation of (60) years with all consequential benefits

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAVI KUMAR VADLAKONDA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1to5: GP FOR SERVICES ll Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI KISHORE RAO PUSKURU

¶18

(SC FOR TS ZILLA PARISHADS)

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.38711 OF 2OI7

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present writ petition is fiied praying to grant the following relief:

¶24

'...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned orders issued by the 3'd respondent in Lr,No.A3/3105 /2O17-Pls dated 24. 10.2017 and the consequential proceedings issued by the 4th respondent in Proc.No.B/ 178/20L6 dated O1.11.2077 wherein retiring t)-e petitioner from service at the age of 58 years, though he is working in last grade servicc and redeployed as Panchayat Secretaqr and cntitled to continue in the service till attaining the age ol superannuation of 6O years is illega1, arbitrary and u nconstitutional and set aside the same with a consequentia.l clirection to the respondents to consider the claim of thc petitioner to continue in service as Panchayat Secretar)' till attaining the age of superannuation of 6O years u."ith a1l consequential benefits and pass . .. .."

¶25

The brief facts leading to filing the present writ pctition are as under:

¶26

| . Petitioner was appointed as Waterman-cum-Watchman through District Employment Exchange vide Proc.Rc.No.2527 lE4 192 dated O 1. 12.1992 and was posted to Government Civil Hospital, Basanthnagar. Services of the petitioner were regularized in the cadre o[ Watcrman-cum-Watchman vide orders dated 07.03.1994 and his

¶27

!.,\A.J Itlltio3STllol)017

¶28

¶29

probation was declared in the same cadre vide orders dated 30.03.1995. On completion of eight years of service, petitioner was granted special grade post scale in the cadre of Waterman-cumWatchman vide orders dated 22.O1 .2001.

¶30

2.2. The Govcrnment had issued orders calling for options lrom the emplo},ees, who are u,illing to work as Panchayat Secretaries to strengthen the local bodies of Panchayat Wing. Petitioner expressed his willingness to work as Panchayat Secretary and accordingly, he was redeplol,ed as Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Katkenepalli village of Dharmaram mandal of Karimnagar district by the 3'd responde nt vidc his Proc.No.A3/2605/ 2001-Pts, dated IO.O7.2OO2. In the said proceedings, it was mentioned that vacancies should not be fillecl up as the individual service deemed to have continued in the Department as per Government Orders cited. In the light ol the orders of the 3.a respondent, 4fi respondent relieved the petitioner from Government Civil Hospital of Basanthnagar, vide orders dated 16.07.2OO2. Though petitioner was posted as Panchayat Secretary, his pay and allowances were paid in the cadre of Last Grade Servicc.

¶31

2.3. On completion of 16 years of service in the cadre of last grade service, he u,as sanctioned special promotion pay scale vide Proc.No.Al 1144 lO9, dated 24-08.2009. lt is further contended that though petitioncr was eligible and qualified for promotion as

¶32

t..'A.J tt P.\o 3u7l I pl )017

¶33

¶34

Panchayat Secretary Grade-lll, he was not considered for the same^on the ground that he was not absorbed into PR & RD Department. Petitioner services were utilized as Panchayat Secretary only on OD basis by protccting his pay in the last grade service. Though petitioner completed 58 years as on 30.06.2017, he was continued in service till the 3.d respondent issued impugned orders dated 24.1O.2017 notifying the dates of retirement of Panchayat Secretaries on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years for the calendar year 2017-18 including the petitioner's name. Further, 3.d respondent directed the 4th respondent to relieve the petitioner from services. Accordingly, 4ti' respondent issued orders retiring the petitioner lrom serviccs vide order impugned herein, which is under challenge in the presen t u,rit petition.

¶35

2.4. It is contended that as per the Andhra Pradesh Public trmployment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (for short, Act, 1984), the age of superannuation is 60 years. Since the petitioner was not absorbed as Panchayat Secretary, he is entitled for continuous of services till attaining the age of 6O years as petitioner serviccs is governed by the Act, 1984.

¶36

Respondent no.5 filed counter. In the counter, it is contended that initially petitioner was appointed as Waterman-cum-Watchman in Medical & Health Department and worked in Governrnent Civil Hospital, Basanthnagar of erstwhile Ramagundam mandal (presentiy,

¶37

LN/',J 'P.No.J87l I o-t 201 7 4

¶38

Palakurthi Mandal) of Peddapalli dislrict from December, 1992 in Class-IV category i.e. Last Grade Service. The age of superannuation of retirement of a CIass-IV employees was 6O years according to the provisions of the Act, i984. Subsequently, Government with a view to strengthen the local bodies, have created the posts of Panchayat Secretary combining the Revenue and Panchayat functions in nonnotilied Gram Panchayats and passed orders for fitling up the posts by redeployment lrom the category of VDOs, staff working in Gram panchayats, VAOs and surplus staff of other departments etc.

¶39

3.1. The petitioner had filed option/ r.r,illingness to work for redeployment as Panchayat Secretary. Accordingly, lJrd respondent issued proceedings dated LO.O7.2OO2 appointing the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary and posted at Gram Panchayat Katikenapalli of Dharmaram mandal. Thc post of Panchal'at Secretary lalls under the Ministerial service and the age o[ superannuation as per the provisions of the Act, 1984 is 58 y-cars and according to which, the date of superannuation of retirement of pctitioner was 30.06.2017. Therefore, 3''t rcspondent has rightly issued orders permitting the petitioner to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017 and accordingly, 4tl' respondent issued orders dated O l. | | .2017 .

¶40

3.2. It is contended that as Panchal'at Sccretary, petitioner^was allowed the pay and allowances in the time scale fixed for the post of

¶41

t.t.4,J t4' P l;a 3871 I ol2017

¶42

¶43

ministerial post i.e., Panchayat Secretary as^per his eligibility, but^not in the scale of Class-lV category. That according to the instructions conrained in G.O.Rt.No.700-PR&RD (Mdl.ll) Department, dated 27.O4.2OO2, the age of superannuation of petitioner will be 58 years, and the petitioner would have filed his application for his re-transfer to his parent department to his original post i.e., Class-IV category if he was '*,illing to continue in service upto 6O years. But, it was not done by the petitioner prior to his date of attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years in the cadre of Panchayat Secretary, which falls undcr ministerial service.

¶44

3.3. It is further contcnded that the provisions of Last Grade Service will not apply in the case of petitioner as he was working in ministerial service cadre (Panchayat Secretary) as on the date of his attaining the age o[ superannuation of 58 years on 30.06.2017. Thc petitioner has enjoyed the fruits and benefits of the minister seryice for about 15 years, as such, the contention of petitioner that he was entitled to continue in scrvice till 60 years as in the case of last grade scrvice cannot be considered and finally, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶45

Respondent no.6 hled counter and contended that as per the service register of the pctitioner available in the office, petitioner was initially appointed as Waterman-cum-Watchman vide order dated O1.12.1992 and posted in Ciovernment Civil Hospital, Basanthnagar

¶46

LN,1,J P.No l87t I of20l7

¶47

¶48

and his services were regularized on 07.03.1994. The Government formed Revenue and Panchayat Raj Clusters for effective and good govemance at the gross-root level and consequent on formation of Panchayat Clusters for restricting the administrative setup at village level for effective functioning, the Government decided to regroup the existing categories of Panchayat Secretaries into four categories and the case of the petitioner falls under the fourth category i.e., Panchayat Secretary Category-Vl with Record Assistant- scale.

¶49

4.1. As per the orders issucd in G.O.Ms.No.295 PR & RD (Md1.II) dated 02.08.2O02, service rules r.r'ere issued lor the post of Panchayat Secretary of all the categories, in u'hich for Category-Vl Panchayat Secretary, the method of appointment of Panchayat Secretary in this cadre is by transfer from surplus manpo'Ivvcr pool provided by the Finance Department. The pctitioner opted for appointment to the category of Panchayat Secretary constituLed under the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Panchayat Secretary) Subordinate Service Rules, 2OO2 with the terms and cor-rditions of the^{(i.O.Rt-No.7OO} Panchayatraj & Rurat Development (MDL-tl) Department,^dated 27.O4.2OO2 and was posted Panchayat Secretary of Katikanpally.

¶50

4.2. The petitioner was paid $,ith the pa-v scale of^Panchayat Secretary and he enjoyed all the privileges of the Panchayat Secretary Grade-IV and also allowed all PRC scales upto retirement and his pay was also protected as Panchayat Secretary scale. Therefore, his

¶51

*./

¶52

L.4,J t1'P No.387l I of)Ol7

¶53

¶54

service was treated as per the Service Rules issued for the post of Panchayat Secretary and 58 years as superannuation. On attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years, the 3rd respondent issued order dated 24.10.2017 directing the 46 respondent to relieve the Panchayat Secretaries noted in the annexure on due date. Accordingly, 4rh re spondent issued proceedings No.B I 178 /2016, dated O 1. I l.2O17 lor retiring of petitioner and accordingly, petitioner was retired lrom scrvice.

¶55

4.3. The Government had issued Memo No.8891/Mdl-lllA2 /2012-I, dated 3 I .O5.2O12 clarifying the age of retire ment of Panchayat Secretary on various dates. Though petitioner had an option of reverting back to his parent department, no such option was utilized by the petitioner and continued in the post of Panchayat Secretary. Finally, it is contended that having availed the privileges of Panchayat Secretary, petitioner cannot claim the age of superannuation of initial appointment under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1984.

¶56

Heard learned counsel Sri V.Ravi Kumar Reddy for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Sewices-ll representing respondent No.S and Sri P.Kishore Rao, the learned standing counsel for Zilla Praishads representing respondent no.6.

¶57

Learned counsel for petitioncr submitted that petitioner was initially appointccl as CIass-[V cmplovee in Medical and Health

¶58

'r Department and u,orked in C'iovt Civil llospital, Basanthnagar and \

¶59

I.\A.J u.l' io.387l I oI )017

¶60

¶61

later, on his willingness, he was deputed to work as Panchayat Secretary. He further submitted that as petitioner was not absorbed in Panchayat Raj Department and his services were utilized as Panchayat Secretary only OD basis by protecting his pay in the last grade service. He further submitted that petitioner was getting special grade scales only in the cadre of Class-lV employce and therefore, the age of superannuation of the petitioner be treated as 60 years as per the Act, 1984 and his services ought to be continued till 6O years. He further submitted that instead of continuing the services of the petitioner, the 3.d respondent issued the impugned order, contrary to the Act, 1984 and prayed to allow the u,rit petition.

¶62

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services-ll representing sth respondent submittecl that p,rtitioner u,as redeployed, on his wiilingness, as Panchal.'at Sccretar-v, which falls under ministerial cadre and u,as allou'cd pay and allowances in the time scale fixed for the post of ministerial post i.e., Panchayat Secretary and as per the instructions contained in^{(.i.O-Rt.No.7OO,} dated 27.O4.2O02, the age of superannuation of redeployed Panchat Secretary shall be 58 years as per the clariflcation instructions issued in Government Memo No.8891/Mdt.lI I A2 I 2012- l, dated 3 1.05.2015. Therefore, the petitioner u,as rightlv permitted to retir(' from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years b!' I he 3.d and 4th respondents vide Lr.No.A3 /3105 /2017 -Pts, dated 24.1O.2O17 and

¶63

I,NA,J tf.P No.387ll a/ 2017

¶64

¶65

B/178/2016, dated Ol.lI.2Ol7, respectively, and the provisions of Last Grade Service would not be applied to lhe case of the petitioner as he was working in ministerial service cadre as on the date of the age of superannuation of 58 years on 3O.06.2O17.

¶66

B. Learned standing counsel for respondent no.6 submitted that the petitioner had opted for appointment to the category of Panchayat Secretary constituted under the A.P.Panchayat Raj (Panchayat Secretary) Subordinate Service Rules, 2OO2 with the terms and conditions of G.O.Rt.No.70O, dated 27.O4.2OO2 and he was posted as Panchayat Secretary at Katikanapally. He further submitted that petitioner was paid with the pay scale of Pzrnchayat Secretary and he enjoyed all the privileges of Panchayat Secretary Grade-lV and allowed all PRC scales upto his retirement and his pay was also protected as Panchayat Secretary scale. Therefore, his service was treated as per thc Service Rules issued for the post of Panchayat Secretary and his retirement age \r,as 58 years. Thus, having availed all the privileges ol Panchayat Secretary, petitioner now cannot claim the age of superannuation of his initial appointment under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1984 and finally prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶67

Consideration:

¶68

The Government of A.P., issued G.O.Rt.No.700, dated 27.O4.2OO2, as per which, the Government formulated the scheme for redeployment of emplovees as Panchavat Secretaries from regular

¶69

r"\ l./ ,r / \1) r,\ /l {// --(//:

¶70

¶71

Government staff, who are willing to work as Panchayat Secretary,

¶72

lrom various departments, subject to following conditions:

¶73

1. Such appointment on redeployment shall be treated as inter departmental deputation flor all government employees.

¶74

1. They will be posted as Panchayat Secretalv in other than their native mandal.

¶75

1. Their pay shall be protected

¶76

1. Employees of Govemment Corporations / Undcrtakings/ Societies are not eligible for redeployment as Panchayat Secretaries.

¶77

1. They are governed by the conditions stipulated in G.O.(P) No.i0 Finance (FR-II) Department dated 22.01.1993 in so far as they relate to their terms of deputation.

¶78

1O. Vide proceedings dated 70.O7.2OO2, thc 1;etitioner was

¶79

redeployed as Panchayat Secretary with the lollowing conditions:

¶80

"(1) Xxx

¶81

(2) xxx

¶82

(3) This appointment on re-deployment shall be treated as nterdepartmental deputation.

¶83

(4) The promotional channel will be as it stands nort in his parent department and he will have the option to rcvert to his^parent department on promotion.

¶84

(5) His pay will be protected

¶85

(61 He is governed by the conditions stipulated in G.O.(P) No. 10 Fin. (F.R-II) Dept., dated 22.01.1993, so far as he relates to term of deputation."

¶86

1 1. The contention of the petitioner is that he u,as not been paid

¶87

the salary of Panchayat Secretary and no promotion n'as also given to him and in fact, he was paid the salary of parent department and as

¶88

L,\A.J u' ? \o 3871 ! of1ol7

¶89

¶90

such, the age of superannuation shall also be treated as per its parent department norms. The pctitioner though contended that he was not paid salary of Panchayat Secretary, no material is placed on record to substantiate his contention that he was paid salary of parent department and has not been paid the salary of Panchayat Secretary. As per the proceedings dated lO.O7.2OO2, by which, he was deputed as Panchayat Secretary. Clause-(4) of the proceedings dated 1O.O7.2O02, the promotional channel will be as it stand in his parent department and he will have the option to revert to his parent department on promotion.

¶91

In the counter filed by .5th respondent, it is specifically contended that petitioner was redeployed, on his willingness, as Panchayat Secretary, which falls under ministerial cadre and was allowed pay and allowances in the time scale fixed for the post of ministerial post i.e., Panchayat Secretary as per his cligibility, but not in the pay scale of Class-lV category. Further, the petitioner had option to niake a request of retransler to his parent department to his original post as Class-lV (Last Grade Service) category, if he was willing to continue in service upto 6O years. Hou,ever, the petitioner did not request for retransfer to his parent department and as such, his date of attaining the age of supcrannuation of 58 years in the cadre of Panchayat Secretary falls under ministerial service. Therefore, the Department had rightly permitted him to retire from

¶92

\ l.J t) ? \o -a-l! t)i :t)i:

¶93

¶94

services on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years since the provisions of Last Grade Service will not apply in the case of the petitioner as he was working in ministerial service cadre (Panchayat Secretary) as on the date of his attaining the age of superannuation.

¶95

It is also contended that petitioner was paid wilh the pay scale of Panchayat Secretary and he enjoyed all Lhc privileges of Panchayat Secretary Grade-IV and allowed all PRC scales upto his retirement and further, his pay was also protected as Panchayat Secretary scales.

¶96

The petitioner did not hle reply to the counter file d by the respondents to the specific averments made in the counter and did not place any material on record to substantiate his r:ontention that he rvas paid salary of his parent department. Admittedly, the petitioner did not opt for retransfer to his parent department as per clause (4) of the proceedings dated 1O.O7.2OO2 ar-rd had continued upto 20 17 i.e., about 15 years as Panchayat Secretary.

¶97

As per Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (Act No.23 ol 1984), every government employee, not being a workman and not bclonging to Last Grade Service shali retire from service on thc afternoon o[ the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty cight years. As per the proviso (2) of Section 3 of the Act 1984, every Government

¶98

L,,1.J fi P \o 337 t I of )0t/

¶99

¶100

employee not being a workman, but belonging to the Last Grade Service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of skty years.

¶101

Admittedly, petitioner continued in ministerial service cadre (Panchayat Secretary) from the date o[ deputation till the date of his superannuation of 58 years and he has not opted lor retransler to his parent department. Therefore, petitioner is not covered by proviso (2) of Section 3 of the Act and thus, his age of superannuation has to be treated as 58 years.

¶102

In the light of above discussion and material on record, in considered opinion of this Court, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and thus, liable to be and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶103

18 Pending miscellaneous applications if ar-r1, shall stand closed.

¶104

AssrsrsADlifRIEffitH //rRUE coPY// sEc,di/oFFlcER

¶105

To,

¶106

1 Two CCs to^{GP FOR SERVICESll 'High Court for the State of Telangana' at} 2 8#"rt?sl8Hlhrynwr^%"A?,.n53U?$?tRTsipJ,x"r 3 On" CC to^{SRl. KISHORE} PARISHADS) [OPUC] 4 Two CD^CoPies

w" BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211212023

ORDER

g€ i,rArE
(:
lt
ts stt ltitl ti
o
I
0r:3P a,1
::..

¶113

WP.No.38711 of 2017

¶114

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶115

f @ W- 6w

P.Laxmi Narsaiah, v. Prl.Secy., Panchayat Raj Dept., 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Laxmi Narsaiah, v. Prl.Secy., Panchayat Raj Dept., 5 Others

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

The Union of India Vs Smt. Jadi Suguna

Union of India Vs Musa Karunakar

Dubba Isaac Vs Smt. T. Chennakeshwari and Another

The Tsrtc Vs J.Jhansi Rani

Navaneetha Rao Takkallapally, Vs Thipparapu Sunitha

The Union of India Vs Smt. Mamidi Sujatha and another