Allowed

L. Suryanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2023WP(TR)/4718/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a writ petition seeking notional pension benefits for an increment earned immediately prior to retirement. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that the exclusion of such benefits was arbitrary and unconstitutional.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to extend the benefit of increment falling due on 01.11.1995 notionally for pensionary benefits within three months, revise pension and pay consequential benefits.

L. Suryanarayana Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION^(TRLNO: 4118 oF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

L. Suryanarayana, Aged about 78 years S/o Sri L Pulliah Occ Retired Deputy Executive Engineer, lrrigation Department, Khammam Rl/o H No 6-2-73, Sree Krishna Nagar, Near Krushi Bhavan, Khammam 507OO2 Telangana

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, lrrigation and Command Area Development Department rep by its Principal Secretary to Government of Telangana,Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

Engineer ln Chief, lrrigation Department, Government of Telangana, Erramanzil Hyderabad

¶13

The Accountant General (A&E), Union of lndia, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 500004

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Section 226 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to i. Declare the action of the Respondents in not^giving the benefit of the increment which fell due on 1 Nov 1995 to lhe applicant as^per Go Ms.No. 98 dt. 8.7.2015 notionally for the^{purpose pensionary} benefits as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and unconstitutional as violating Articles 12,14,16 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently hold that this applicant is entitled for the notiorJral benefit of the said increment which fell due on^{1 Nov} 95 with all consequential benefits and consequently direct the respondents to extend the said benefit to this applicant and consequently revise the^pension of the applicant with all consequential benefits and consequently,^pay to the applicant the said revised pension with all consequential benefits like arrears of^pension etc and consequently

¶16

Counsel forthe Petitioner: SRl. Dr. K. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA Counsel forthe Respondents: AGP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

¶18

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO WRIT PETITION(TR I No.4718 of 2OL7

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶21

"...to declare the action of the Respondents in not giving the benefrt of the increment which fell due on I Nov 1995 to the applicant as per Go Ms No 98 dt 8 7 2015 notionally for the purpose pensionary benefits as illegal arbitrary contrary to law and unconstitutional as violating Articles 12 14 16 and 2l of Constitution of India and consequently hotd that this applicant is entitled for the notional benefit oi the said increment which feII due on 1 Nov 95 with all consequential benefits and consequently direct the respondents to extend the said benefit to this applicant and consequently revise the pension of the applicant with all consequential benefits and consequently pay to the applicant the said rcvised pension with all consequential benefits like arrears of pension etc and consequently ii pass such order.. ."

¶22

Heard Sri Dr.K.Laxmi Narsimha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Governntent pleader for Services - II appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pctitioner was appointed as Supervisor (Assistant Engineer) in Irrigation f)epartment on 22.09.196 I and he retired from service on attaining the age of slrperannuatlon on 31.10.1995 and his incrernent was due on O 1. H.+995, since he was retired, his increment

¶24

¶25

¶26

was not added while fixing his^pension, and his^pension was fixed as per the Pension Payment Order^{(PPO) No.1O-} SGC-OO3 194 by excluding this incrernent^{which fell due} on O1.11.1995. He further submits that^{the pensionwas} fixed at Rs.3535/- in 1995. Subsequcntly,^{due to the} revision of pay scales, the^{pension was revised upwards} periodically. He also submits that the^{petitioner was} retrospectively promoted as Deputy^{ExecutiveEngineer.} Pursuant to the orders issued^{in 2Ol2 w.e.f December} 1976, his pension has to^{be revised.}

¶27

1 He further contended^{that Government had issued} G.O.Ms.No.235, Finance and^{Planning dated 27.1O.1998,} directing the concerned in all^{cases wherever date of} increment falls due on the next^{date of retirementsuch} benelits should be added^{to the pensionon notionalbasis.} In spite of the repeated^{representationssubmittedby the} petitioners the respondents have not taken^{any action,} without any reasons. In support^{of his contention,he} relied upon the Judgment of^{the Hon'lcle Supreme Court} in Director (Adnn. And^{HR) KPTCL and. Others Vs' C'P'} Mundinamanl and Othersl.

¶28

'^{2023SCCOnlineSC401}

¶29

¶30

¶31

4 . Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1O.1995, subsequent to the retirement he is not entitled to claim benefrt pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.235 dated 27.IO.1998 and rhe said G.O., is only prospective in nature. He further submits that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, Finance (HRM-V) department dated 08.O7.20 15 for the purpose of pension of those retired ernployees to whom the concession is being extended to the Government Servants retired prior to 25.05.1998, shalt be revised ald re-hxed duly considering the pay last drawn by them as ernoluments for ca,lculation of pension under Rule 4S(2)(b) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 198O, and the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit either under G.O.Ms.No.235 dated 27.17.1998 or under G.O.Ms.No.9g dated O8.O7.2015.

¶32

Having considered the riva,l submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record it clearly revea,ls that the petitioner joined services as supervisor (Assistant Engineer) in irrigation Department on 22.09.196 1 ancl thereafter he retired on attaining the age of superannr_ration on

¶33

¶34

10.1995, arrd his increments fell due on^O 1.1^{1. 1995.} As per the G.O.Ms.No.235 dated 27.10.1998 and^also subsequent G.O.Ms.No.9S dated O8.O7.2O15 if the date^of increment falls due on the next date of retirement,^the said benefit should be added to the^pension on notional basis.

¶35

In Dlrector (Admn. And HR) I<PTCL^(supra) Honourable Supreme Court held that:

¶36

2O. Similar view has also been expressed by different High Courts, name.ly, the Gujarat High Court,^the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Orissa High Court and the Madras High Court.^As observed^hereinabove, to interpret Regulation 40(1) of the^{Regulationsin the} manner in which the appellants have^understood and/or interpretated would lead to arbitrariness^and denying a government servant the^benefrt of annual increment which he has already earned^while rendering specified period of service with^good conduct and efhciently in the last^{precedingyear. It} would be punishing a person for no [ault of him.^As observed hereinabove, the increment can^{be withheld} only by way of punishment or he has not^performed the duty efficiently. Any interpretation^{which would} lead to arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided. If the interpretation as suggested^on behalf of the appellants and the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh^{High Court, is} accepted, in that case it^would tantamount^{to denying} a^government servant the annual^{incrementwhichhe} has earned for the services he has rendered over a year subject to his good behaviour. The entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises^whenthe government servant completes requisite length of service with^good conduct and becomes^payable on the succeeding day. In the present case the word "accrue" should be understood liberally and would mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and

I ,

--7

unreasonableness and denying a government serv.ant legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to for rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided. We are jn complete agreement with the view taken bv the Madras High Court in the case of p. Aygamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand VijaA Srngh (supra); the Madhya pradesh High Court in the case of yogendra Singh Bhadauia (supra); the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Bisu.ral (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhcttsinh Ud.esinh Songiro (supra). We do not approve the contrary view taken by the Fult Bench of the Andhra pradesh High Court in the case of Pincipal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of unton of Indta v. pauithin (O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on 22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Han Prakash v. Stare of Himachal pradesh (CWp No. 2503l2016 decided on O6.t I.2O2Ol.

¶42

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appeuants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efl.icientlv. We are in complete agreement with the view taken bv the Division Bench ot the High Court. Under thc circumstarrces, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, irr the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

In the above said Judgment the Hon,ble Apex Court held that Government employee is entitled to annual increment, earned one day prior to retirement, and the said judgmcnt is squarely appricable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

¶44

¶45

For the foregoing^{reasons, aldalso in view of the} principle laid down by^{the Hon'ble Apex Court,the} respondents a-re^{directed toextend thebenefrtof} increment which^{fell due on 01.11'1995to the petitioner} as per G.O.Ms.No.98,^{Finance(HRM-V) departmentdated} 08.O7.2O15 notionally^{for the purposeofpensionary} benefits within^{a period of three (3) monthsfrom the date} of receipt of the^{copy of this order'}

¶46

g . Accordingly, the^{Writ Petition isallowed without} costs.

¶47

As a sequel, miscellaleous^{petitions,pendingif any'}

¶48

shall stand^closed

¶49

//TRUE^COPY//

¶50

SD/- K.^VENKAIAH REGISTRA^R ASSISTANT SECTI OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

rheprinciparse^crelqry-!-f; ;b"JlfrT::lH'S.^:?ili'],i..3:liiq:lr'*

¶53

E:H[?1ifS"r',"?iln"J""?'T'irH"'ffi^{x"c6u"'.nn,."ntorreiansana'}

¶54

J. F[S13:#IJli3if"%'(A&E)'^{union or rndia'Andhra Pradesh' Hvderabad} 4 ?$%a3t, to^{Gp FOR sERvrcESr ,Highcourtfor the State of relansana'at} E 3T1"38?S^{sAi]b'.K. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA, AdVOCAIETOPUC]}

6 Two CD^CoPies

BM GJP b

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 510912023

ORDER

.. i:, i..1 lI .-
)
li i'' (i' 1E ot1 2$8
,'i