Allowed

Sudireddy Narender Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Aug 2025WP/15559/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by government college teachers and lecturers seeking coverage under the Old Pension Scheme on the model of Central Government one-time option Office Memoranda. Counsel said the issue was settled by a recent Division Bench common order and two July 2025 orders; respondents did not dispute. The court disposed of the petition wholly in terms of those earlier orders, without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in terms of the orders of 23.07.2025 in W.P. Nos. 5724 and 20466 of 2025 and the Division Bench common order in W.P. Nos. 22559, 15644 and 11398 of 2023; pending miscellaneous pe

Sudireddy Narender Reddy, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13252 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY^{OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 15559 OF 2021

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

Sudireddy Narender Reddy,^{S/o Sudireddy N,4ohanReddy, Aqed-a.bout42} years Occupation. Service, R/o H. No. 20'18314,^{Aditya Nilayam.Edlawada,} botlege Road, I,4ancherial 504208,^{(Constituentof ers[while AdilabadDistrict)} Ielangana State.

¶10

Dr. A. Shankar Kumar, S/o.^{Nandya, Aged about 45 years,Associate} Professor, Govt. City College,^{Nayapul,Hyderabad}

¶11

Guthikonda Chandrakala,^{D/o. Srinivas,Agedabout44 Years, Asslstant} Professor of Tetugu, Government Degree College,^Bhupalapally

¶12

Appikonda Kavita, D/o. A.^{Balaram Naidu, Aged about 47 Years, Principal.} Government Degree College,^{Sherlingampalli,Hyderabad}

¶13

Surasi Kiran, D/o. S. Saraiah, Aged^{about43 Years, Assistant Professor f} Physics, Kakatiya Govt. College,^Hanamkonda.

¶14

Gudipati Laxmaiah, S/o.^{Mattiah, Aged about49 Years' Junior Lecturer in} History, KRR Government Junior College,^{Kodad, Suryapet.}

¶15

Gogikaru Nagoji, S/o. Chandoii,^{Aged about 56 Years,Associate Professor of} Economics, Government Degree College,^{Chanchalguda, Hyd.}

¶16

B. N/andhadi Raveendra Reddy,^{S/o. M. Amrutha Reddy,Aged about 47 Years,} Assistant Professor of History,^{GovernmentDegree College,I,4adhira,} Khammam (District).

¶17

V. Veera Reddy, S/o. Achiah,^{Aged aboul 44 Years,Assistant Professor of} Physics, Government Degree College,^{lbrahimpatnam,RR District.}

¶18

'10. K. Sreedhar, S/o. K Narsaiah, Aged about 55 Years, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Government Degree^{College,Quthbullapur,lVledchal-I,4alkajgiri} District. Aged about 55 Years,^{Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Government} Degree College, Quthbullapur, Medchal-^{tr/alkajgiri District.}

¶19

P. Aruna, D/o. P. Venkata Ratnam,^{Aged about 50 Years,Assistant Professor} of Physics, Pingle Government^{CollegeforWomen,Waddepally,} Hanamkonda.

¶20

.12. Gugulothu Cheenya, S/o. Jij1u, Aged about 49 Years, Govi Principal, Junior College, Burgampahad, Bhadradri^{KothagudemDist.}

¶21

13 A- Soma Narsaiah, S/o.^{Chandraiah, Aged abou[ 47 Years,Assistant} Professor of Pub. Admn., Government^{Arts and Sc.College, Karlmnagar.}

¶22

Kesetti Urrakiran, D/o. Dasaratham, Aged about 46 years, Asststant Professor ol Englrsh, Government Degree and pg Colk:ge, Jammikunti

¶23

15.Dodda Sujaiha, D/o. Janaki Ramaiah, Aged about 4l years, Assistani Professor c f Commerce, SR and BGNR^"Government Ads and Scrence College (A) Khanrmam.

¶24

-1 ii Puiluru S:;v t\a, D/o. Purruru Vasanth Rao, Aged abour 47 years, Lecturer i. Bolany, Go\enrment Degree College, Godavaiikhanr

¶25

17 Chonnuru l.run:i. D/o. Seeta Ramarao, Aged about 47 years. Assislani Prcfessor r,i^physics, BJR Government Degrec Col{ege, Narayan,trJu. l-1;dn'x',a :

¶26

1B.ltl .f ri-'iLrqu, ,,4eEham:la. Government Degree D/o. l\rl Narsaiah, colege. Aged about ivlaripeda, r\rahabubabad 50 years, Assistant professorDistrict - -

¶27

f Prajwala, D/o. T. Krshta Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Assistant professor of Ecoronlcs. Government Degree Cbllege, Seritingampally, Hyderabad

¶28

Gadc lvlallos;h, S/o Venkatarah, Aged about 51 years principal, Govt Junior Coliegc, Nar rnctta, Jangaon Dist.

¶29

2'1 .A .Srinivas, S/o. Ashanna, Aged about 46 years, Assistant professor of History, Govi Dcgree College, Narsapur, l./edak Dist.

¶30

K. Srinivas. -lio. Laxminarsaiah, Aged about 56 years, AssistanI professor oi Economics 3over nment Degree College for Women, Nalgonda.

¶31

23 Rav.indar l(apuganti, S/o. Ramanjaneyuru, Aged about 46 years, Assrstant Professcr of Commerce, Tara Government Coiiege (A), Sangareddy^-

¶32

24 Galendra B.:bu PGK, S/o. parameswarappa K, Aged about 50 years, Assistant Prcfessor of Commerce, Government City^"College 1A),^nayipul,

¶33

Hydera bao

¶34

R. Ran-rakrrsl-rna, s/o. Gangaram, Aged about 43 years, Assistant pro[essor of Commerci: SRR Government Arts and Science College (A), Karimnaqar.^-

¶35

G Purushotiram, S/o. Ramaswamy, Aged about 46 years, Assistant PToiessor of Economics, Govt. Degree College, peddapalli.

¶36

Devarakonda Rani, D/o. Bara Kotaiah, Aged about 54 years, Junior Lecturer in Englrsh, ASR Government Junior College, Khammam.

¶37

V V. I\4allika. D/o. Krishnamacharyulu V. G. V., Aged about 43 years. Asst. Professor of [)ivics. Tara Government College (A), Sangrareddy.

¶38

Ravr Kumar Renta{a, S/o. Samuel, Aged about 4g years, principal. Governrnent Junior College, Banigand lapari'u, Khammam Dist.

¶39

3o. Ka^rkuri Pr-emalatha, D/o. chinnaiah, Aged about 43 years, Lecturer rn Chemistry Govt Degree College, Luxettipet.

¶40

Dr. G. Narsimulu, S/o. G. Ramaswamy, Aged about 55 years, Associate Professor of^rlivics, Govt. Degree Collegi:, 1W; 1n; aegumpet, Hyderabad.^---

¶41

Dr. Parvathalu Kalakonda, S/o. Beeraiah, Aged about 46 years, Assistant Professor. Government City College (A), Hydeiabad.

¶42

Dr. -Rajasri -Avadhani, D7o Vasanth Rao, Aged about 52 years, Assistant Professor of Phvsics, S.R.R. Government A aid Sc. cortege tnl, r<irimnigar^'

¶43

Aasam Sanjr:evaasam, S/o. Laxmirajam, Aged about 45 years. pnncinal Government .Junior College, Ibrahimpjtnam, J"agtiat Diitrict.

¶44

Syamala Anumolu, D/o. A Venkateswarlu, Aged about 44 Years, Assistant Professor of Commerce, SR and BGNR Government Arts and Science College (A) Khammam.

¶45

A. Ashok, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged 54 Years, Assistant^{Professorof Chemistry,} Government Degree College, Parkal, Hanumakonda District.

¶46

PETITIONERS

¶47

AND

¶48

1 The State oI Telangana, Represented by the Principal Secretary,^Finance (Pension l) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶49

The State of Telangana, Represented by the^{Principal Secretary, Higher} Education Deparlment, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶50

Commissioner of Collegiate Education,^{Telangana State, Nampally,} Hyderabad.

¶51

The Secretary,, Telangana State Public Service^{Commission(erstwhile} Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission),^{Pratibha Bhavan, l,4J Road,} Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶52

5 Union of lndia, Represented by the Secretary,^{Department of Penstonand} Pensione-s Welfare, l,4inistry of Personnel, Public Gricvances^andPensions, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.

¶53

(As per Court Order, daied 2519124 vide l.A.No.2/2024 in W.P.No-1 5559 of 2021. Respondents No.2to36 are impleaded)

¶54

...RESPONDENTS

¶55

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} crrcurnstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the Higtr Court ntaybe} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more^particularly oncⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of l\ilandamus directing^{the Respondent No. 1 (A) To adopt the} Office memorandum issued by Government^{of lndia,Itriinistry of Personnel,Public} Grievances and Pensions, Department of^{Pensionand Pensioners WelfareOffice,} No.57lOSl2O21-P and PW B, dated 03-03-2023^{also, (B) To issue ordersto} govern the petitioner under Old Pension Scheme.

¶56

(As per court Order, d1.25-O9-2024 vide l.A.No.1 ot 2024^{in W.P.No.15559of} 2021 . Praye( is amended)

¶57

l.A.NO:1 OF 2021

¶58

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleasedto}

¶59

direct the Respcndents 1, 2 and 3 to consider the Petitioner's Representation Dated 23-05-2020 for granting a one{ime opt,on to be governeJ by the A.p. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (Now Telangana), on the analogy of similar option given by th(] 5t r Respondent to the similarly placcd Central Government empJo)/ees vrde Cfirce lVenrorandull No. 57i04/2019-p an.j pW(B) Dateo j7 02?-A2a. ior bernq r rrveined by the Cenlral Civrl Service (pensronl Rules, 1972. pcnding disposai olthe marn writ petition.

¶60

l.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶61

Pelition unccr Section 151 cPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed I support of the petrlion, the High Courl may be pleased to issue a {/rit, ordt;r or direction. more particularly one in the nature of writ of manriamus. rlirect re the Responclent No.1 a) To adopt thr: Office memorandunr issued by Govcrrnrcnt of lnrlla. li"4inistry of personnel. public Grievances and Pensions. Deoa"inrcrrt oi Pension and pensioners, Welfare Office No.57i 05i 202'1 -P & PW (B), dt.03rd \llarch Z0Z3 also, b) To issue orders to qovern lhe pi]titioner under Old Pension Scheme.

¶62

Counsel for ttre Pr:titioners : SRI GADDAM SETHU MADHAVA RAO

¶63

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : AGP FOR FINANGE AND PLANNING

¶64

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : AGP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶65

Counsel for the Rr:spondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TELANGANA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

¶66

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court rnade the following ORDER

¶67

HON'BLE MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶68

WRIT PETITION NO.15559 of 2O2I

¶69

ORDER:

¶70

Heard Sri P. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Public Service Commission, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

¶71

The petitioners filed the writ petition seeking the following relief

¶72

"lo issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direc[ion more particularly one in the nature of Writ oF Mandamus d ircctinq the Rcspondent No.1

¶73

(A) To adopt the Office memorandum issued by GoveTnmenI of India t"linistry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare Office No 57/O5/2O2LP and PW B dated 03032023 also

¶74

Si\ l \ i' ti)i9 lal i

¶75

(B) T'l rssuc ordcrs to co/ei-n thc petitroner under old PJn sron Sr henrc .rnC

¶76

1r 1;ass sLr(h ol,lr'i lrcii:rs as arc deeined fll and p'cper in ihc crrcunsf arirces oi lhe casc".

¶77

It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioners that the subject issue in the^present writ petition is squarcly covered by thc common order of Division Bench ol thr:, C-curt iated 19.01.2025 oassed in W.P. Nos. 22559 l)l LVZ) 1 )U i'] Ul v1 ) , I I )Si ,,f 102?. Ihe i-Pl!vant ,l, J Nos.2 / .:nd 28 of thc sairi L)rvisron Bench order is extracted hereunder

¶78

"27. Thc ooinion of this l)ench is that the casc of the pctilicners hcre rn would i'all wit hrn thc Old Pension Schemc. Uut consrderinq the f.rct that lh€rre is no information submittcd by cithcr of^t"ire respondents in respect of c-,ppc.rr unily being givcn to the petitioners lo exercisc their options, !,v c l'ccl iI dcsrrable and appropriate that the rcspondcnLs shaiL scr:k ooirons as a onc time measurc from all thc pctitioners, who .rrc cove red under lhr: present writ petiLicns and any othci i,nrployees who arc recruited and rryhose, seieclior process .vas commenc,3d prior to 01.09.2004 as against thc vacancies which had arisen much prior to 31.12.2003. Consequently respondents shall take further steps accordingly and make applicability of the rclevant pension rules to the petitioners as o;;ted by them, tryhich arc applrcable tc them as per the Judgment of the

¶79

SN. J lvP liii9 l02 t

¶80

l )

¶81

High Court of Bombay in Khilari Rajendra Eknath's case (supra). It is iurther directed that the en[ire exercrse shall be cornpletcd by lhe rcspondcnts within a^period of three (3) nron|rs irom thc d.rte 01'receipt ol'a copy of this order.

¶82

2A. Wirh Lirc above observations, these three Writ Petitions ar e drsposed of. Therc shall be no order as to costs".

¶83

The lcarned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further. submits that the subject issue in the^present writ^petition IS squarcly covered by the recent orders of this Court dated )3,O7.2O?5 passcd in W.P. No. 5724 of 2025 and order of this Court dated 23.07.2025 passed in W.P. No. 20466 of ?O25

¶84

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the rcspondents does not dispute the submissions made by the Iearncd counsel appearing on behalF of the^petitioners, and contends that the rr,rrit^petition could be disposed of in similar lines of order oF this Court daled 23.07.2025^passed in W.P. No 20466 of 2025 and the order dated 23.07.2025^passed in W.P. No.5724 of 2025

¶85

Bringing the said submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on record, the writ

¶86

¶87

\ Ij 15i59 t,)t I

¶88

petition is allowed in terms of the orders of this Court dated 23.O7.2025 passed in P.W. No. 5724 of 2025 and order of^lthis Court dated 23.O7.2025 pass;ecl in W.P. I{o. 20466 of 2025 and also the common order of Division Bench of this Court dated 19.O3.2025 passed in W.P. Nos. 22559 of 2023, L5644 ot 2023 and 11398 of 2023. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶89

any^pendirrq, in the Writ PelrLion shaliaiso stanc closed.

¶90

That Rule Nisi has beell allsoiute as above.

¶91

witness the Hon'ble the chief Justice ApARESH KUMAR srNGH, on this Wednesday, the Thirteenth day of August, Two Thousand and Twenty five

¶92

SD A,H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR 5 ISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER

¶93

To , ll:^I:,:^"f:J l::1.,,_e,y Frnanco (pension t) Deoartxelr, Secrerariar. Srate of Telangana . I Hyder,lbac

¶94

2 The Principal Secretary, tligr'rcr Education Dcparlment, secretariat, State of I etangana at Hydera bad.

¶95

The Commissioner of Collegiate =ducation.^{Telangana State,Nampally,}

¶96

Hyderabad.

¶97

4 The,Secretary,.Telangana State public Scrvice Commis;sion. (erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Pubric Service commission), pratibha anrrin N,lJ Roua, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶98

5 The.Secretary, Union ol, lndia, Depaftment of pension and pensione-s Welfare, I\4inistry of^personnel, public Grievances and pensions f ot< Nayat Bhawan, Khan i\rlarket, New Delhi.

¶99

6 Two ccs to GP FoR FINANCE AND PLANNTNG, High court for the state of

¶100

_^{Telangana at Hyderabad.} [OUT]

¶101

7 Two CCs to ,GP FOR HtcHER EDUCATTON, High Court for the State of

¶102

^^{Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]}

¶103

One cc to sRt cADDA|V sETF]ul4\DIJAVA RAO, Advocate topucl 9, ONC CC tO DEPUTY SOTICITOR GENERAL ON IrIbrN, AdVOCitE IO-dUCI 10. one CC to SRt^p.S RAJASEKHAR SC FoR rgrervcerva SinirEuEiic SERVICE COI\4tu4tSStON. Advocarc f OpUC)

¶104

1 1 Two CD Copi,.s SA

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310812025

ORDER

WP.No.15559 of 2021

1 'rlE s14
Y
{)
(-) A c '.2
I i1025
[[T :' .,
i'
-h +.
x
D4.l o

ALLOWING THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

P5K,J&NNR,] wp 22559 2023&batch

¶115

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶116

WRIT PETITION NOS.22559, L5644 AND^{11398 0F 2023}

¶117

COMMON ORDER:^{(per Hon'blesri ilsticeNarsingR(ro Nandikonda)}

¶118

Since the parties and the^{issue involvedin batch of these} three writ petitions are^{common,these three writ petitionsare} being heard together and^{disposed by wa-v ol this common} order.

¶119

AIl these three Writ Petitions^{are filed under Article} 226 of the Constitution^{of India seekingto issuean appropriate} writ, order or direction^{more particularly,one in the nature of} writ of Mandamus declaring^{the actionof respondent Nos.1 to 4} having adopted and implemented^{the Government of India'sNew} Pension Scheme and not adopting^{the guidelines of the Offrce} Memorandum, dated 17.O2.2O2O^{issued by theDeputy} Secretary to Government of^{India uide Ref.No.57} l04/2019-P^&' PW (B), and Office Memorandum^{under Ref.No-S7} l05/2021P&PW(B), dated 03.03.2023,^{as arbitrary,iLlegaland violativeof} Articles 14, 16, 19,21 and^{3OO A of the Constitution of India} and consequently, direct^{therespondents toadopt and}

¶120

¶121

PSK,]&NNR,] wp 22;5I 2021&b.tch

¶122

implement thc: OlTice Memorandums, dated 11'.O2.2O2O and 03.03.2023, e ir-hcr bv aclopting or moclilying the Tr:langana SLate Rcvised l)ension Ru1es, i9BO or issuing officierl N4emolandun'r iclentical to the Clovernment of India Officc NlemorandLrms, dateC 17.02.2020 and 03.O3.2023. SO AS to givr: efl'ect to the petltloners

¶123

FACTS OF THE CASE

¶124

Petrtioners before this Court in W.1r.No.22559 ol 2O23 rncrc :rlrpointed and working as Juniot- Assistant(s), Tl,pist(s) an<{ l)ersonal Assistant(s) in the Unit of District ancl Sessions Judgr:, Mahabubnagar District; similarll, petitloncrs in W.P.No. 15644 of 2023 were appointed as Junior Assisrant(s), T,ypist(s), Freid Assistant(s), Copyist(s) and Atter-rdar (s)/Process Server(s) itr the unit of District and Sessions Juclge, A4ahabubnagar District and the petitioners in W.P.No.11398 of 2023 r,verc :rppointed and working as Jur-rior Assistant(s), Tvpist(s), Field Assistant(s) and Attender(s)/ Proce ss Sen.er(s) in the unil of Principal District and Sesstons Juclge, Nizamabad District ar-rd the aforesaid Districts are under the control of the High Court for the State of Telangana. A1l the pc.titioners were appointed through direct recruitment vicle Notifi<:ation No. 1 of

¶125

¶126

PSK,I&NNR,] wp-22559_2023&batch

¶127

2OO4, No.2 ol 2OO4,^{No.S of 2004, No.6 of 2OO4and No.7 of} 2004, dated 22.O1.2004 and^{19.01.2004 respectively, issuedby} the Unit Head of Mahabubnagar^District.

¶128

For the purpose of disposal o[ these three writ petitions, the facts in W.P.No. 15644 of 2023^{are to be taken} into consideration, which^{read thus:}

¶129

It is stated that after conducting written^examination for the said posts, due to^{Administrative reasonsduring said} period, appointment letters were^{delayedand the samewere} issued on 18.02.2005,^{18.02.2O05,25.05.2005, 18.03.2005,} 2 6. O t.2OO 5, 26.O |^.2OO 5^{and 23.O 4.2OO 5 re spectively.}

¶130

It is stated that during relevant^{period of lssuanceof} aforesaid notifications, the other^{units of Principal and District} Judges, which were under^{the control of erstwhile High Courtof} Andhra Pradesh, also issued^{notificationslor filling up of posts} that arose prior to 31.08.2004^{those notifications were acted} upon and appointment^{orders were also timely issued and those} persons were covered under Old Pension^{Scheme. But, in the} case of combined unit of^{District and SessionsJudge,} Mahabubnagar District, now^{divided into Ilve units, under the} control of respondent Nos.6 to^{11, stated that issuance of} appointment letters before^{3 l.OB.2OO4got delayed due to}

¶131

¶132

P5(,]&NNR,] wp 22s59 2073&batch

¶133

Aclministrative reasons. As a result the petitiouers have lost their valuablc right to recc-ive pension uncler O1d Pension Schcme,^(lcner-al Provident Fund ctc. Holvever, the .pe^rsonsrvho got selected under corresponding notifications issued during the similar period ..r'r other Units under the control of this Court, got covered under Old Pension Scheme benefits. It is only in the case of thc pe,titiot-rers that such a grave prejuclice has beer-r carrsed. It is further slated that in the writ affidavit that the petitroners have approached appropriate Forums for ventilalittg their gricr':rnce tl-ra^t" ti-rey are entitled for OId Pension Sclreme. But so far thcir grievance has not been settled.

¶134

It is stated that rn the budget for 2OO|-2O02, the Governmenl of Indra has zrnnounced that all Ner,v pension Schernes baseo on a defincd contribution would be implemented in respect of^(lentral Government Serwices including A1l h-rdia Services, such as Indian Administrative Ser-vices, Indian police Services, Indian Foreign Service etc., after 01.10.20O1. The combined State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana ufulc its G.O.Ms;.No.653, Finance (Pension-I) Department, clated 22.O9.2OO1 have decided to adopt the Government of india,s Nerv Pension Scheme (NPS) based on Defined Contributions for the employees of State, rvho are newly recruited on or aftcr

¶135

¶136

PSK,J&NNR,J wp 22559_2021&batch

¶137

Ol.O9.2OO4. Under the new Contritrutory^{Pension Scheme(CPS),} each employee has to contribute^{ce rtainamountand} government will contribute certaitr amount. It^{is stated that} when old pension scheme was^{prevailed, there was no such} contribution required from^{the employees.}

¶138

While the matter stood tl'rus, taking^into consideration various representations /^{relerences and decisions} of the Courts and after careful^{analysls olthe same,the} Government of India, issued^{clarifications that old pension} scheme has to be applied^{incase of candidates,rvho were} selected prior to Ol.Oi .2OO4 , but^{their appointments were got} delayed due to administrative^reasons/ constraints.lt^{is further} stated that further representations^{were received bythe} Government of India, after^{issuance of officials Memorandum} uncler Reference No.57/04l2O9-P&'PW(B),^{dated 17.O2.2O2O,} from the employees requesting^{to extend the said benefitof} pension on the ground that the appointment^{macleagainstthe} posts/vacancies advertised/ notified for^{recruitment prior to} notification of National Pension^{System, were referred to the} Juclgments of various High Courts^{and Tribunals. Considering} the same, respondent No.5^{has issuedfurther clarification by} way of official Memorandum^{under ReferenceNo.57} l05/2O2I^P

¶139

¶140

P5K,J&NNR,J wp 22559 2021&batch

¶141

&PW(B), daLerl 03.03.2023, stating that matter has been examined in r:onsuitation '"r,ith the Departmen t of F in:rncial Services, Pcrsonnel & Training, Expenditure and Legal Affairs in the light of various representa tiolls and decistons of thc Court and decided that all cases, where the Central Government Civil Employees have been appointed against a post or vacancy which r,vas advertisecl / notified for recruitment/appointment prior to dale ol' notification for Natronal Pension System i.e., on 22.12.2OO3 and is are covered under NPS on joining servicc on or bcfore 01.0 1.2004, ha-s given one-time option, r,vhich has to be covered under the CCS/(Pension) Rules, 19'72 (notv 2O2l Rules).^'I'he said option exercised by the Government Servants concerned by 3 i.08.2023

¶142

It is furtl-rer stated that respondent Nos.1 to 4 having adopted NPS n,ith effect from O 1 .O9 .2OO4 , hzrve invariabl), adopted the necessary corrective measures taken by the Central Government b1, u,a1. of oflicial Memorandum, dated 77.O2.2O2O and 03.03.20211. It also further stated that when the combined State of Andhra Pradesh adopted Contributory Pension Scheme on 01-09.2004, rvhich rvas introduced by the Ciovernment of India by bringing amendments to Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 vide G.O.MS.No.653, Finance (Per.rsion-I)

¶143

¶144

P5K,]&NNR,i wp 22559 2023&batch

¶145

Department, dated 22.O9 .2OO4, there is no bar for the Government of Telangana or the respondents herein to implement the guidelines issued by thc Govcrnment of India vide Offici:rl Memorandum No.57-O4/2019-P&PW(B), dated 77.O2.2O2O and official Memorandum under Reference, dated 03.03.2023. It is also stated that if the said clarifications and amendments rvere brought in the Telangana State Revised Pension Ru1es, 1980, the petitioners and several similarly situated persons would come under the^purview of^{o1d pension} schemc. This is because, in case of the^petitioners herein, the vacancies in the posts against which they were appointed had arisen prior to Ol.O9.2OO4, notifications were also issued^prior to 01.A9.2004, but unfortunateiy d.ue to^{administrative} lapses/ exigencies on the part of recruiting authority of^the concerned Ur-rit alone appointment letters^{were issuedafter} OL.O9.2OO4 and the said delay was only due to^{administrative} lapses

¶146

It is further stated that similarly situated^employees of Judicial Department, who were^qualified under^{the same} notification issued before O 1.09.2004 and received^appointment letters prior to that date are currently enjoying the^benefitsof the old pension scheme. But, in the^case of^{petitioners,if the}

¶147

¶148

P5(,]ANNR,J wp 22559 2021&batch

¶149

respondents will implement the guidelines issued vide Memorandum, d:rted 17.O2.2020 and 03.O3.2023, the petitioners rvculcl gct benefit of O1d Pension Scheme ancl General Prol'idt:r-rt Func1, as the State Government adopted said scheme onlv lrom 01.09.2004. It is stated that the learneci Principal District and Sessions Judge (Head Quarters) Delhi, in compliance s,ith the s:rid Merr-ror:rndum, dated O3.03.2023, had issued Circular No.B89/ 11653 12653, dated O5.04.2O23, giving opportunity to the cmployces whose apporntments were based on vacancies iind notifications issued prior to eifective date of NPS

¶150

I 1. It is further stated that acting upon various representations of several employees including the^petitioners, respondent No.2 itself addressed a letter No.166/TLSP lRLl2O2O, dated 05.O6.2O2O, to respondent irlo.3 to furnish information in the month of June, 2O20 pertaining to the employeesr of Statc Judicial Ministerial and Subordinate Servrces cover,:d b1, NPS in the prescribed form duly specifying the vacancy arrsen prior to 31.08.2004. Basing on that, respondent No.3 called for information from the learned Principal District Judges/Unit Heads vide ROC No.3B6 /2O2O-C1, dated 08.06.2020 and in response to the same, respondent

¶151

¶152

P5K,]&NNR,J wp 22559 2023&trat.h

¶153

Nos.6 to 11 furnlshed information to^{respondent No.3} confirming that the petitioners and others^{are eligiblelor o1d} pension scheme. But till date no concrete steps^{1-rave been taken} by the respondents.

¶154

Lastiy, it is contended that in similar^{circumstances,} the Dlvision Bench of High^{Court ofBombay inKhilari} Rajendra Eknath and others v. The^{State of Maharashtra} and others in (W.P.No.227O of 2O2Il^{vtde order, dated} 28.O4.2023 taking rnto account the^{Office Memorandumissued} by Union Government, 5tr' respondent,^{dated17.O2.2O2O ard} also the Office Memorandum, dated^{O3.03.2O23issuedby} Government of India, Ministry of^{Personnel,PublicGrievance} and Pensions, New Delhi, and also^{consideringthe ratio laid} down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in^{various Judgments,directed} the petitioners therein shall be^{governed by the Old Pension} Scheme in vogue prior to^{01. 1} 1.2005,^{as well as General} Provident Fund Scheme.

¶155

Whereas W.P.No.1139B of 2O23^{was filed by the} petitioners seeking the similar relief sought in^{W.P.Nos. 15644 of} 2023. They were appointed as Junior^{Assistants, Typists,} Amin/Field Assistant, Attenders/^{Process Serversetc in the Unit} of Principal District and Sessions Judge,^{NizamabadDistrict}

¶156

PSK,I&NNR,1 $/p 22559 2021&batch

¶157

against the va,:anc_v that arose before 31.08.2004 pursuant to the Notifications, clated 19.O1.2004. They appear ior written examination aacl rppointed on 11.O7.2OO5, 06.07.2005 and 19.09.2O05 respecrtivcly. According to the pr:titioners, the decision to givc al:pointment letters to petitior-rers was taken by the responder-rts prior to 01.09.2O04, but due to administrative exigencies, the selcction process got delayed and as a result of which, the petitioners have lost their valuable rlght to receive pension uncler old per-rsron scheme under corresponding notrfications <luring the srmilar period. Therefore, the petitioners pray for issuance of a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to adopt and implement the Government of India,s New Pension Schernc and to implement the guidelincs of the Official Memorandum, dalecl 17.02.2O2O issucd by the Deputy Secretary to Governrnent cf' India .",ide Ref.No.57l04 l2019 p&, PW (B), and official Memorandum undcr reference No.57l05/202- -P & Pw (B), ctated 03.03.2023.

¶158

Per contra, respondent No. t has decided to adopt New Pension Scheme bascd on a Dehned Contributlon,s for the employees of the State, who are newly recruited after O 1.09.2OO4. FIe lurther submitted that respondent No. t has issued further ciarification vide Office Memorandum

¶159

1,4

¶160

PSK,J&NNR,J wp 22559 2023&batch

¶161

Ref.No.57l0512O21-P & PW^(B), dated 03.03.2023, in all^cases where the Central Government Civil Employees have beeu appointed against a post or vacancies, which were advertrsecl / notified lor recruitm ent / appointment, prior to the date of notification for National Pension system i.e.,22.12.2003 and is covered under the Natronal Pensiotr System even though^joining in seruice was on or after 01.01.2004. As these^peoplewere given a one time option to be covered under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 (Now 2021). This option exercised by the concerned Government servant by 31.O8.2O04. It is further stated^that respondent No. I while issuing necessary corrective measures^to the National Pension Scheme by way of oflicial memorandum, dated 17.O2.2O2O and O3.O3.2O23 has suggested/advised^the State Governments also to adopt the same. It is further^stated that the issue of adopting Government of India^Memorandumby the State Government of Telangana 15a policy matter and involves a decision whether to amend the statutory^Rules Governing pensions namely the Telangana State^Revised Pension Rules, 1980, or not, which is entirely within^the purview and domain of the State Government and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petitions.

¶162

¶163

PS(,]&NNR,] wp 22559_2023&batch

¶164

HeeLrd Sri V. Ra.laShekar Reddy, learned counsei for the petitioners, Smt. M.Shalini, learnecl Governmer-rt Ple;Lder for Services-I, erppearing for respondent No. 1, Nlr.Vivek Jain, learned Stanclir-rg Counsel, appearing for responcl:nt Nos.3, 4, 6 to 1 1. Peruse 11 the entire material on record.

¶165

The question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions rs "whether the petitioners are entitled to New Pension Scheme pursuant to the Oflice Memorandum, dated L7.O2.2O2O, issued by Deputy Secretary to Government of India vide Ref.No.57lO4!2OL9-P &PW(BI and Office Memorandum under reference No.57lOSl2O21-P&PW(B| dated O3.O3.2O23 introduced by the Government of India".

¶166

L7. Th,: Government of Andhra Praclesh issued G.O.Ms.No.653i, Finance (Pension -I) Department, dated 22.O9.2OO4, stating that in the Buciget for 2001-2O02, the Government of India has announced that a Nerv Pcnsion Scheme based on Defined Contribution will bc introduced to those who enter Central Government service inclucirng the All India Services, such as Indian Administrative Service. Indian Police Service and Indian Foreign Service (Defer-rce, Railways, Posts, Telecom, Autonornous Bodies and Scientific

¶167

¶168

PSK,]&NNR,] wp 22559 2o23&batch

¶169

Organizations) after O1.10.2O01. Further, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh after careful consideration, decided to adopt the Government of India's New Pension Scheme based on Defined Contributions for the employees of the State, who are ne'v newly recruited on or after 01.09.2004. Under the Contributory Pension Scheme, each employee has to contribute certain amount and Government may contribute certain amount. The New Contributory Pension Scheme is not applicable to the already existing/ serwing employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the amendment was also been made to the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, 'the Rules,1980') by incorporating sub-rule 2 (g) (i) to the Rules,19B0, which reads as under

¶170

"ln the said Rules, in Part I after rule 2 (1) the following shall be added, namely:-

¶171

"(g)(r) These rules shail not apply to all thc Govcrnment^{Servants appointed} on or after 01.09-2O0.+, to ser/ices and^posts in connectior^{wrth the affairsof the} State r,r,hich arc borne on pcnsionable establtshnrcnt, \,hether temporary,^or permanent.

¶172

(ii) These rules shall not apply to all appointments, whether^temporary or permanent, made on or after OI.09.2004ⁱⁿ all the^{State PublicSector} Undertakings, whose pay and^{allowances are drarvnfrornthe ConsolidatedFund of} the State or not.

¶173

(iii) These rules shall not apply 1e all appointmcnts, u'hether temporary or pcrmanent, made on or aftcr 01.09.2004 of^{all the tlers of the Rural andUrban} l,ocal Bodres such as the Cram Panchayats,^{ManrlalParishads,ZillaParishads,} Municipalities, Municrpal Corporations, Urban Dcvelopment^Authorities ,Cooperative and Urban Local Bodies,^{ZillaGrandhalayaSamstl'ras, Agricultlrrc}

¶174

¶175

P5K,]&NNR,J u,p 22559 2o2l&batch

¶176

Marketing CommitLccs, illcirrding all the ljnivcrsitics rn tllc Stat,r, rncluding all ihe Institutions functicning uncier tl-re Unil,ersitics, r'hose pay anci ailotvanccs are drau.n fronr the Cor solidatcd Fund of tl.re State or not.

¶177

(iv) Thcs: Rules sh.:il not applv to ai,l,ointrrcnts, rvhether ternporalr,.i or permanent nradc ou or aite| O 1.09.2004 into all thc Institutiorrs :ece ing Grant-in AicL from tltc C'or,:rrr:nr:nr

¶178

(v) Thcs^- Rrrlers sltall not apply to appoilttmellts. \,I1(tttrcl tctrporalt, or permanent, r[ade on ,-rr after O1.09.2O0.1 to all Co opcrative Institutrons, ALltonomous Corp,rratioirs, whose pay alld trlloq,anccs arc dl a\.n fr'oIIr ttrt: Consolidatcd Frtnrl of the State or not."

¶179

With the above factual background, as it is seen that the said G.O. being applicable to all the rnstitutior-rs includrng the High Courl for the State of Telangana ancl which is also applicable to entire District Judiciary. The petrtioners before this Court were appointed under different Notificatior-rs, different cadres in the unit of District Judiciarv under the controi of the High Court for the State of Telangana and the then Hrgh Court of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners are presentlv rvorking in the units of the D:strict Judiciary, which are under the Control ol the High Court of State of Telangana.

¶180

Learned counsel for the petitioners submittecl that in the Notification, dated 19.Ol.2OO4, issued by District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabacl, does not mention about the applicability bf pension scheme. However, it is aiLegcd that the appointment Jetters rssued b.y the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nizanlabad, stated that the candidates apporntecl to the

¶181

¶182

P5K,]&NNR,] wp 22559 Zo2l&baIch

¶183

respective posts are covcred^{by the} contributory^{pensiorl scheme} and the existing pension scheme^{as per A.P. RevisedPension} Rules, 198O would not apply to them^{as per the instructions} issued by the Government in^{G.O.Ms.No.655, dated 22.O9.2004.}

¶184

He further submitted that the combined State^of Andhra Pradesh had adopted Contributory^{Pension Scheme on} Ol.O9.2OO4, which was introduced^{by the Governmentof India} by amendment to Andhra^{Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980} vide G.O.Ms.No.653, dated 22.O9.2004.^{Therefore, there is no} bar for the respondents to implement^{the guidelinesissued by} the Government of India vide Ofhce^{Memorandums, dated} 17.O2.2020 and 03.03.2023.^{He also further submitted that in} case of similarly situated employees^{of otherunits of Judicial} Department, who were^{qualified pursuantto the Notilication} issued prior to OI.O9.2OO4 and^{whose posting letterswere} issued prior to Ol.O9.2OO4 and they^{are taking the o1d pension} scheme but, in case of^{petitioners, due toadministrative} reasons, they would not^get the^{benefitof old pensionscheme} and General Provident Fund^{Scheme as their appointmentorder} is subsequent to^O 1.09.20O4^{and hence,he prays to implement} the Office Memorandums, dated^{17.O2.2O2O and 03.03.2023.}

¶185

¶186

PSK,]&NIiR,] wp 22559 2o2l&batch

¶187

2L. On the other hand, learned Governmr:nt Irlcader for Services-I. appearing for respondent No. 1 veiternentiy argued that t1-re applicability of the Pension Scheme is nor mentioned rn tlre notificat ion, datecl 19 .Ol .2OO4 issued b_r, District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, but the same was mentioned ir-r the indrvidual appointment letters that the candidates appornted to post is covered by Contributory Pension Scheme and the existlng pension scheme as per A.P. Revised pension Ruies, l9B0 r,vill not be applicable to them as per the instructions i-"sued by the^(iorzernment in G-O.Ms.No-655, dated 22.O9.2OO4. She lurther contended that the petitioners having knowledge about non applicability of the provisions of the A.p.Revised Pension Rules,, 1980. Now they cannot clai:n that their appointments zrre subject to applicability of old pension scheme. As a result their claim for applicability of the old schen'rc is not acceptable. He further contended that tire said Office Memorandum, dated 17.O2.2O2O and G.O.Ms.I,lo.655, dated 22.09.2OO4 are subsequent to the Offlce Memorandum, dated O3.O3.2O23 rvhich rvas not adopted by the Gorrcrr-rment of Telangana. Therefore, the respondents case is that these office Memorandum lvere not adopted by Government of Teiangana, rvhich is issuec by the Deputy Secretary to Government of India

¶188

¶189

PSK,J&NNR,I wp_22559 2023&bat.h

¶190

vide Ref.No.57 l04/2O19-P&PW(B), whereln at Paragraph^No.4,

¶191

it was held was under

¶192

"The matter has been examined rn corrsulLaLion with the Department of Personnel & Training Department of Expenditttre and Departmcnt of Legal Affairs in the light oI the various represen tatlo^ns / re[erences ancl decisions of the Courts in this regard- It has been decided that rn all cascs^(/here the results for recruitment rvere declarcd belore Ol.Ol.2004 against vacancries occurring on or before 31.12.2OO3, the candidates declared succcssful lor^r-ecruitment shall^be eligible^for coverage undcr the CCS^(Pcnsion) RLlles, 1972. Accnrdingll', such^Govcrnment scrvants who were declared successful for rec]ruitmcnt in thc rcsults^dcclarcd on or before 31.12.20O3 against vacancies occurring^beforc 01.01.2004 and arc^covered r-rnder the National Pension System on^{joininq servicc} t,n^{or aftcrO1.O.2004,maybc} given a one time option to bc covered undcr tht-'CCS (Pcnsion) Rulcs, 1972. This optlon may be exercised by the conccrned Govcrnmcnt servants latest^by 31.O5.2020."

¶193

Accordingly, the Government servants who were^declared successful for recruitment in the results declared on or before 31.I2.2OO3 against vacancies occllrring before^{01.O 1 .2OO4and} are covered under the National Pension^System but^{have joined} service on or after 01.01.2004 may be^{given one time optionto} be covered under the CCS Pension rules, 1972. This^option may be exercised by the concerned^{Governmentservantsnot} later than 3I.O5.2O2O, the option so^{exercised shall be hnal} Furthermore, in paragraph No.5^of the^{saidofhce Memorandum,} stated that those Government^{servantswho are eligible to} exercise option in accordance with^{paragraphNo.4 above, and}

¶194

¶195

PSK,]&NNR,] w.2255!) ZO2l&batch

¶196

whoever did not exercised this option by the stipulated dale, shall contrnue to be covered by the National Pension Svstem

¶197

Further, the Government of India N,linistrv of Personnel. Public Grievances and Pensions Dep2plmsnl .1 Per-rsion and Pr:nsioners' Welfare vide Ofhce Memorandum dated 03.03.2023 has issued certain guidelines mainly applicabiiitlr of the O1d Pension Scheme by providing them opportunity to arc exercise t heir one time option the relevant paragraphs

¶198

extracted be1ov,,

¶199

''::l R,,-)resentati()ns have been recelved in thls D,tpartnrcnl from the^(i.rvernment servants appointed on or after O1.01.200.f rcqLrestlrrg [or cxtending the benefit of the pension scirerne uncler Ccntral Ciril Scrviccs (Pcnsion) Rules, 1972 (nou, 2O2 1) on the ground t. ral thcir appointment ',,as made against thrj posts/r,aciLrrcres advc rtise d / no tiired for recruitment priol to rlotifi.ation for National Pension Systcm, referrirlg lo .our1 judgmcnts of various Hon'ble High Court and Hon ll e Ceritral AciminisrriLrivc Tribunal allowing such bcncfits to applic.rnts.

¶200

4 Thc mattcr- has been examined in coLrsult:ltion $'iti) thc Dcparilrlcut of FiDancial Scrwices, Department of I'ersonnel fi, Trainrng, Dc])artmcnt of Expcnditure and Departrnent ot Legal AfIarrs rn .lre light of the various rep res entations / rcfc re nce s ancl dccisrorrs^,)[ the Courts ln this regard. It has now been dcciclcd tirat, in all cascs u,hcrc the Central Government Civi[ employee has bcr-n appolnlcd a€{ainst a post or vacancy^r,r hich rvas adver tis ed / no tified for recruitment/ appointment, prior to the date of notification for National Pension System i.e., 22.12-2003 and is covered under the National Pension SysLcm on joining scrt,ice on or aftcr O1.O1.2OO4, may be given a one-time option to be covcrcd under the CCS (Pension) Rules, t972 (no1v

¶201

¶202

PSK,J&NNR,J wp-_22559 2023&batch

¶203

2O2l). This option rnay be exercisecl by the concerned Government servants latest by 31.O8.2O23.

¶204

In the present case, admlttedly amendment of Rule

¶205

2(g) (i) to the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Ru1es, 1980 come into force on 01.O9.2004. In al1 cases where the Central Government Civil employee have been appointed against a post or vacancy which was aclve rtisecl/ notified lor recruitment/appointment, prior to the date of notilication for National Pension System i.e., 22.12.2OO3 and is covered under the National Pension System on joinlng service on or after Ol.Ol.2OO4, may be given a one-time option to be covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2O2l). Further, the Notifications, dated 19.Ol-2OO4 ar,d 22.O5.2OO4, issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, were prior to date of applicability of the said amendment i.e., Ol.O9.2OO4, the process was done after 01.09.2004 so far as the order of appointments is concerned. It appears that the entire^process got delayed for the reasons best known to the respondents. Even otherwise Notification was issued on^{19 .01 .2OO4} , obviously at best, it might have communicated much^prior to OL.O9.2OO4 as entire^process has took^place for about 7 to^B months and the petitioners were^selected in the month^{of Ju1y,}

¶206

¶207

PSK,]&NNR,] wp 2255l_2O23&batch

¶208

20O5 and they wcre posted in various departments and the entire selectic,n process has taken place much prior to 11.07.2005.^'1'1-re saicl vacancies which is said to have been notified woulcl bc n-ruch prior to the date of 31. 12.2003 thougtr notification rvzr s s ubsequent to 0 1 .0 L 2004. In respect of the vacancies that arose on or after 01.01.2004 New Pension Scheme u,oulci not apply to the candidates as very amendment to A.P.Re vised Pension Rules,19BO is made applicable only^to the appointmr:nts by temporary, which had made on or^after 01.09.2004.

¶209

In t-he present case, though appointment^{letters were} issued srrbsecllrcnt to O 1.09.2OO4, the entire^{process of} recruitmer-rt ,vas made alter O1.O9.2OO4.^{Therefore,the} vacancies notified would pertain to those^{that arose beforc} 31,12.2AA3. l'.s such the contention of the^{petitionersholtis} good and this bcnch has no hesitation to come^t.o a^conclusion th:rt the zrppc,lntmetlts which made in^{respect of the present} notitications thc appiicability to the New^{PensionScheme} cannot be acc,:pted and the^{petitioners whoare appointed under} said notifications and whose vacancies arose^{much priorto} 31.12.2OO3 ',vould squarely fali within the^{purview of} A.P.Revised Pt:nsion Rules, 1980.

¶210

¶211

P5K,J&NNR,] wp 2255s 2023&batch

¶212

Learned counsel for the^{petitioners reliedona} judgment of the High Court ol Bombay 1n Khilari Rajendra Eknath and others v. the State of Maharashtra and others lW.P.No.227O^{of 2O2ll, dated.24.O4.2o23,whereinthe High} Court of Bombay held that the^provisrons of Old^Pension Scheme are required to be applicable in respect of^vacancies which arose prior to 01.01.2004 and^placed reliance on the Office li4emorandum issued by the Government of India^on O3.O3.2O23 giving one time option to the Central^Government employees who's results were^{declared. successfulfor the said} recruitment on or before 3I.L2.2OO3 as against the^vacancies which occurred before 01.01.2004.^The High Court of^Bombay by relying upon the^judgmentsof the^{Hon'ble SupremeCourt in} Avinaah Singh v. Union of Indial and Parmanand Yadav^v. Union of India2, while allowing the writ^{petition obser-ved} that the petitioners therein will be^governed by the^provisions of^the Old Penslon Scheme in^{vogue prior} to^{01. I} 1.2005,^{as well as} General Provident Fund Scheme. Further, the^{petitionersshall} not be governed by the^provisions of the^{DefinedContributory} Pension Scheme introduced vide^{G.R.,dated 31.10.2005.The} petitioners' contribution to DCPS be credited to their^GPF

¶213

r (2011) SCC Online Del 2432

¶214

r (2015) 5CC Online Dei 7274

¶215

¶216

PSK,]&NNR,J wp 22i5(l 2023&batch

¶217

Accounts. Thr: moclalilties as suggested. in paragraph No.8 of the Oilicc Nlernorandum, dated 03.03.2003 issueci by the Government oi Inclia shal1 be adopted while swltching over petltioners iro::r DCPS to O1d Pension Scheme. In Prafulla Kumar Srvain Etc. v. Prakash Chandra Misra and others3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court obserwed that the recruitment cannot tantam,runt to appointment. Basing on the Judgment of the Hon'bie Suprcrne Court in Shivaji Nagnath Lokare and others v. State of Maharashtra and othersa. it was observed that thc appointment cannot be rea-d to inclttde the words 'selection, recnritment or recruitment process'. Pursuant to the entire material on record, this bench is of the opinion that the petitioners r,vouid fall within the 'O1d Pension Scheme' and New Pension SchenLe rvil1 not be applicable for the reason that the entirc se le ctiorr process had commenced prior to 01.09.2004 and continued tilt O2.08.2O05. Admittediy, the said notification 1S pertaining to vacancies that arose prior to 31.12.2OO3, AS such, u,e are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be conslderecl undcr O1d Pension Scheme and the A.P.Revised Pension Rules '"r.,ould be applicable

¶218

r 199-3 SCC Supl.(3) 181

¶219

'1zoru 1s vn. r.r.ssa

¶220

¶221

PS(,]&NNR,] wp 22559 2023&batch

¶222

Learneci counsel for the petitioners has pointed out and brought to the notice of this Court regarding the letter, dated 08.06.2O2O addressed by the Registrar (Administration), to all the learned Principal District Judges/Unit Heads calling for information pertaining to employees covered by Natio nal Pension System (CPS) in the prescribed proforma, which reads as under

¶223

"Advertinll to the subject and reference cited, I am to request you to furnish the information pertaining to emplovees of State Juclicial Ministerial and Sllbordinate Services coverecl b_r, Nalional Pension System (CPS), in the prescribed prolorma (enclosed herervith) by return FAX for onward transmission of the same to the Secretary to Government, Law (LA, LA & J) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. "

¶224

27 . The opinion of this bench is that the case of the petitioners herein would fall within the Old Pension Scheme. But considering the fact that there is no information submitted by either of the respondents in respect of opportunity being given to the petitioners to exercise their options, we fcel it desirable and appropriate that the respondents shall seek optlons as a one time measure from all the petitioners, who are covered under the present writ petitions and any other employees who are recruited and whose selection process was commenced prior to Ol.O9.2OO4 as against the vacancies which

¶225

¶226

PSK,J&NNR,] wp 2255! 2023&bat.h

¶227

had ansen tnuch prior to 31. i2.2003. Consequentl5r

¶228

responcients shal1 take further steps accordingly and make applicability of the reler,ant pension rulcs to the petitioners as opted by ther:t, whtch are applicable to them as per the Judgment of Ljre Higl.r Court of Bomba,y in Khilari Raiendra Eknath's case (supra[ It is further directed that the entire exercise sl-rall be completed by the respondents u'ithin a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶229

2A. With t.he above obseiwations. these three Writ Petitions are disposecl ol-- There sha1l be no order as to costs. Miscelianeous petrtions, if any, pencling shalL stand closed

¶230

JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶231

JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶232

Date: 19.O3.2O25 Note:

¶233

L.R.copy to be marked lB lo) YVL

Sudireddy Narender Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudireddy Narender Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch.Bhoodamma Vs The State of Telangana

M. Chakrapani Vs The state of telangana

K.Geetanjali Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

Ch. Shekar Babu Vs The Vice Chairman

Macha Maralu Vs The State of Telangana

Smt R. Yadamma Vs State of Telangana