Allowed

K. Papaiah, v. Telangana State Residential Educational Institutions Society

Telangana HC27 Sept 2023WP/7259/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dismissal of his pension claim, arguing daily wage services from 1981 should count as qualifying service under Rule 13 of Revised Pension Rules, 1980, relying on constitutional protection of property rights.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to issue pension payment order sanctioning pension and benefits computing service from 12.06.1981 within three months; no costs.

K. Papaiah, Vs Telangana State Residential… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Original J urisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY^{SEVENTHDAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{J SREENIVAS RAO}

¶7

WRIT PETITIO N NO:^{7259 OF 2016}

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Paoaiah. S/o. Narsaiah, aqed 58 vears,^{Working as Attender, Telangana State} Si"iii Weitare Residential School,-^{Addaguduru, MothkuruMandal'Nalgonda} District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Telanoana State Residential^{Educational lnstitutions Society,Hyderabad,} Repie"sented by its Secretary,^{DSS Bhavan, Masabtank,H.V.Oe19qag..}

¶13

Tn6 District Crillector and Chairman,^{District Social Residential Educational} lnstitutions, Nalgonda, Nalgonda^Distict.

¶14

ine^piincipat, felang'ana State^{Social WelfareResidentialSchool for Boys,} Bhongir, Nalgonda District

¶15

it e siit" of T"lang"nr,^{Representedby its Principal Secretary, Social} Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RES,ONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226^{of the cbnstitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction^{more in the natureof [\ilandamusfor} declaration that the service^{rendered by the Petitioner as daily wagefrom} 26-2-1983 to 28-7^{-1997 to be counted towards qualifying service for the purpose} of pension and retirement^{benefits keeping in view of Rule 13 of the Revised} Pension Rules,^'1980

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{M/s. TEJASWINI REP SRl. P. V. RAMANA}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 1&3 : SRI N. BHUPAL REDDY}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 2&4: GP FOR SERVICESV}

¶21

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶23

UIRIT PETITION No.7259 of 2016

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is Iiled ser:king Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondenr.s in not considering the service retrdered by the petition er as daily wage from 26.O2.19a3 to 2a.O7.1992 to be counted towards qualifying service from the purpose of pension ar.rd retirement benefits keeping in view of the Rute 13 of the Revised Pension Rules, 198O.

¶26

Hearcl Ms.Tejaswini, learnerl counsel representing Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel fi>r the petitioner and Sri N.Bhupal Reddy, learned StandingJ Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and learned Government pleader for Services - V appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4.

¶27

.,i

¶28

Learned counsel for the petit.ioner submits that the petitioner was initially engaged as part Time worker on 12.06.79A1. Thereafter, he was al)pointed on Daily Wage basis on 26 .O2.79a3 and the pel.itioner,s services were regularized w.e.f 28.07.1997 and the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.1O.2O16. As per the provlslolLS of Rule 13 of the Telangana S Late Revised

¶29

¶30

¶31

Pension Rules, 198O('Rules' for brevity), respondents ought to have ca-lculated the services rendered by the petitioner i.e., 20.06.1983 to 28.O7. 1997 for the purpose of granting pension and pensionary benefits. On the other hand, respondents are not extending the said benefits on the ground that the petitioner has completed only 19 years of service and the petitioner is not entitled to the pension and pensionary benefits and the same is contrary to Rule 13 of Revised Pension Rules. In support of her contention, learned counsel relied upon the^judgment in W.P.No. 14855 of 2O18 dated 14.1I.2022, wherein the learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in St(rte of Jh.arkhand and others u. Jitendra l{unta.r Srioa,sthaua and a.nothel, held that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his constitutional right for pension except by authority of law since pension is not a bounty but property within the meaning of Article 3O0-A of the Constitution of India and further held that as^per Rules l3 ald 14 of the T.S. Revised Pension Rules qualifying service of a temporary employee for the purpose of

¶32

'^{20l3(12) scc 2lo}

¶33

I \

¶34

payment of pension, the date of initial appointment is criteria and learned Single Jud51e directed respondents therein to issue pension paymen t order sanctioning the pension and pensionary benehts duly computing the service from the date of appointrnent for the purpose of sanction of pension.

¶35

Per contra, learned Government pleader for Services_I, submits that while the petitioner ;s in service, he has not raised any dispute. He hled the writ petition after retirement claiming pension and pensionary benefits from the date of his initial appointment and the same is not permissible under law.

¶36

Having considered the rival submissions made 1by the respective parties and upon perusal of the materit available on record, it reveals that the petitioner was appointed <:n 12.06.198 1 as a par:t time worker through proceedings dated 31.O7.1981 and his services were regularized on 28.07 .L992 and he retired from the services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.1O.20 16. As per Rule 13 of T.S. Revised pensio:n Rules and as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was

¶37

¶38

followed by this Court in W.P.No.14855^{of 20 18 as stateci} supra, the petitioner is entitled for^{pension and} pensionar5r benefits from the date of his initial appointment i.e., on 12.06.l98l

¶39

For the foregoing reasons, the respondents^are directed to issue the pension^{paymentorder sanctioning} pension and pensionary benehts duly computing^the service of the petitioner from the^{date of his appointment} i.e., 12.06.1981 for the^purpose of^{sanction of pension,} within a period of three⁽³⁾ months from^{the date of receipt} of a copy of this order.

¶40

7^. .^{With theabove direction,the writpetitionis} disposed of. No costs. I

¶41

As a seqr..rel, miscellaleous petitions,^{pending if any,}

¶42

shall stald closed.

¶43

%,%?[ft]i'*l!,'Hi[ I sEc(ffii^oFFlcER

¶44

//TRUE^COPY/'

¶45