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

Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue, a writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, to regularize the service of the petitioner with retrospective effect from 2s111/1993 by extending the benefit of judgement of the Honorable Apex court reported in the case of B.Srinivasulu vs Nellore Municipal corporation, Nerlore, Ap i.e., civir Appear No.6318/2015 dated 171812015 and ,udgment dated 21l\t2o1B in wp.No.33936/20i1 and batch and consequently direct the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, and set aside the impugned proc.No. 146trNAdmnt2021 dated .1610912021 issued by the 3rd respondent, by holding the action of respondents in rejecting petitioners genuine claim for retrospective regularization

¶16

I I

¶17

is illegal, arbitrary discriminatory and violation of Article^'14 i rd16 of^Constitution of lndia.

¶18

|.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir: tmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Cour may be^{pleased to} suspend Operation of the impugned Proc.No.^{1461T AlAdmnl2021} dated.'1 6/09/2021 of 3rd respondent.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CH.JAGANNATHA RAO

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondents:GP FOR SERVICES-I

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

)

¶24

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶25

R PE ITI N 2 7L F2 22

¶26

ORDE R:

¶27

Heard Sri Ch. Jagannatha Rao, learned counset counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶28

2. Th tion ra r ach d e our s kin

¶29

praVer as under:

¶30

"...to issue a Writ, Order or Orders more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, to regularize the service of the petitioner with retrospective effect from 25_11_1993 by extending the benefit of judgement of the Hon,ble Apex Court reported in the case of B.Srinivasulu Vs Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, Ap i.e., Civil Appeal No.6318/2015 dated 17-8-20t5 and judgment dated 21_5_2018 in WP.No.33936/2011 & batch and consequenUy direct the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, and set aside the impugned Proc.No. 146/rA/Admn/2021 dated L6_Og-2OZl issued by the 3'd respondent, by holding the action of respondents in rejecting petitioners genuine claim for retrospective

¶31

)

¶32

sN,l W.P.No.^{2 t:,".Ttof 2022}

¶33

regularization is^{illegal, arbitrary discrimina. ryand} violation of^{Article14 and 16 of Constitutionof lrdia and} pass such other order^{or orders in the interestof;lstice'"}

¶34

3 The case of the I,etition er,^lnbrie f,:s ert he eti ioner aver nts made in the affi^{davit filedbv th,} in su ooort^{of theDresnt Writ Petittonlsasll rder:}

¶35

i) The petitioner^{was appointedon daily!^} '^{ge basisin} .lune 19BB at^{the Telugu Academy, Karimnagar As per G O'} MS.No.212dated22.04.1994,thepetitionert,ttameeligible for regularization^{from 25'11.1993on completiorrof frve years} of service,^{but petitioner'sservices were regul;' ized only on} 2g.O3.lgg7 in the^{post ofAttender'P I itionerwas} subsequently^{promoted as Junior Assista- ' in2000'} Publication^{Assistant in 2005 and ResearchAssi!''ant in 2013'}

¶36

The^{petitioner submitted several represe- ationsto the} ii) respondents^{seekingretrospectiveregular zation from} 25.11.1993^{for pensionary benefits' But the rr' pondentshad} not considered^{the saidre presentations ' On e; rlier occasion'} the^{petitionerfiledW.P'No' 15886 of'' O21 seeking} retrospective^{regularization for the purpose} '^{ipension and}

¶37

4

¶38

J

¶39

sN.l W.P.No.2O171 of 2022

¶40

other benefits and this Court was pleased to pass the order dated 15.07 .2027 dtrecting the respondents to consider petitioner's representation, but the 3.d respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on 16.0g.2021 vide proceedings No.146lTAlAd mn/2021 by relying on an inapplicable Government Memo.

¶41

iii) The petitioner retired on 30.06.2020 and his pension was fixed without reckoning service from 1993, resulting in lesser benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶42

4 PERUSE DTHER ECOR D:

¶43

A Th r ev t or IO the n d v d oc d o.1 46 A d n o a 6 9 o21 a edb th r s n n N -T e Dir Telu u ca em Hi tn ar ad s tr c h e der: -

¶44

"Hence the Judgment referred in the Order passed by the learned High Court is not applicable in the present case, where as the petitioner after iailed to get ieile? in tne Ap Administrarive Tribunat tne maitei-,iir'iili'n,utury carried to the Apex Court and Hon,ble apex-Court wnife all^owing the Appeat fited uv rnu- upp'uirurl"iuou u reference so that effect, that ni, ,".uilJr- Uu* r"grtu.i."a

¶45

.+

¶46

SN,J W.P.No..l^{1^7Lof 2022}

¶47

from 1994^{onwardsas he fulfilled the conditions; lpulated} as per G.O.[4s.^No.212.

¶48

In the^{present case, that immediately} ^aflc^{t came to} know about^{your entitlementas per G'O'Ms'No'- I2' your} liuirn or^{regularizationthrough proper chanrr lswere} i"i*ura"a^{aid ultimatety youiservices were r I ;ularized} w.e.f.1997.^{Having accepted the Order of reg- arization} .".f.-fSgZ onuid,^{without any protest'YoL admitted} in" o.J"r^{of regularizationHenceyou are sto ) )ed from} making thls^claim

¶49

The Government^{in the FinanceDepartmr lt ( Memo} No.573)^{has been categorically and clearly sp( ( rfiecj that} tr',r"1#aitiont^{for regulirizatton of servicesot ' lily tvagc} ..pioy"".luUR^{empioyees have been prescril'd by the} Couurnrn"nt^{including issue of ordersof regull' zat on of} t1-c.1 ,"rui."., in^{suchcases, otrly form the date} 9l^it' : ?f order making^{with prospective' Hencecounting ' l servlces} ior.^p"ntion ind^{any other purposes rendered ;' ior :o the} date of regularization^{cannot be entert I ned} "ff"atiu"

¶50

In view of^{above reasonsand a} '^{per the} instructions^{issued in theGovernment! emoNo'} iii,lzfitastpc.Ill/97,^{Financeand Plannins t" partment'} dated 01.09.1997,^{your representation (li I} .not^be considered and^{in result your representati(r hereby} rejected.^"

¶51

Learned counsel^{appearingon behalf of :he petitioner} SUbmitsthatthesubjectissueissquarelycover,]jbytheorder of this Court^{dated 21.10'2020 passed in W P No 16228 of} 2020, the order^{dated18'10'2021passedin W )' No' 3236 of} 2019, and^{the Division Bench judgment of ttr ; Court dated} 02.05.2018^{passed in W'P' No' 33936of 2011 r rd batch'}

..Ecffi*t

t

5

sNrJ W.P.No.2O171 of 2O22

¶56

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 issued by respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside, as the request of the petitioner for retrospective regularization of services for the purpose of pension and other benefits was rejected maanly on three unreasonable grounds. Firstly, it was held that the petitioner, having accepted the order of regularization with effect from 1997 onwards without any protest, is estopped from making the present claim. Secondly, it was stated that the representation of the petitioner cannot be considered in view of the instructions issued in Government Memo No.573/225/A3/pC.ttt/97, Finance and planning Department, dated 01.09.1997. Thirdly, it was observed that the services rendered by the petitioner prior to the effective date of regularization cannot be counted for pension or any other purposes.

¶57

7, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said reasons are contrary to the view taken by this Court in the judgment dated 2t.tO.2O2O passed in W.P. No. 76228 of 2020, the order dated 18.10.2021 passed in W.P. No. 3236 of 2019, and the Division Bench judgment of

¶58

6

¶59

sN.l W.P.N(,.^t-Ol7 L^of 2022

¶60

this Court dated 02.05.2018^{passed in W.P. l</sup> '.^{33936 of} 2011 and batch, and therefore^{the petitioner is c r tltled to the} relief prayed for in the^{presentWrit Petition.}}

¶61

Learned Assistant Government^{PleaderI lpearingon} behalf of the respondents^{does not disputetf (submission} made by learned counsel^{for the petitioner.}

¶62

DISC SSION AND CONCLUSION:

¶63

The udq ment of the Apex^Cou rt^reDc I^{ted in 2O15} scc online SC 1797 between^{B.Srinivalusu, rn} oth r Nellore Municipal Corooration^Re o.bv its C,l Ttmrss^{ion er,} Nellore Distri Andhra Pradesh and other^s,ln pa rticular DarasTandSreads as u nd er:

¶64

"(7) We find i difficult to acceDt^{the reas} o'Dg^aTopte1 by the Hiqh Court. The riqht of^the _opp(^{, antsto seek} reoularization flows from^{the G.O.No.2} 7² pi ted 22L!-1994. The ao^pellant have een tn sen/l of the firs' ondent onlv orior to the issuance of^the id O. s but even su se ue h tssue . till today. he res^pondent Municipality being a statutory^{bodyis oblic, d by the G'O.} 212(supra). Inspite of the^{above ment ( 1ed G.o.the} respondents kept^quite for almost^{20 yearswithout} regularising the service of the appellants^{. r d continued to} extract work from the appellants.

¶65

In the circumstances, refusing the ber,^{fit of the above} mentioned G.O. on the ground thal lhe^appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our^{cpinion,ts not}

¶66

q

¶67

7

¶68

SN,J W.P.No.20171 of 2022

¶69

iustified. In the circumstances, the appeat is altowed modifying the order under appear tv iiiitinq- that the appellants' services be reqularised ii "i"ii'iri_ the date gf^{t,he,ir compteting} their ive y, ,oitinl)o-r-r' ,"iuj|ru u, *u, laid down by this Court in District Cottectiiia'i)person & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (B) SCC qAb.;^-

¶70

10. h r VA rti n t e der of thi d t 02. 5 1 s tn .P No 9 5 t2 1 d b tch is extract d hereu nd r:

¶71

"As already pointed out, when no regular exercise was ever undertaken in any Departmentio ars"s, tne vacancy position so as to immedrately extend benefit to th_ose covered by G.O.tys.No.212, it L not opi'n' to the State to now come forward and say tnai-tne.e were no vacancies as on.the date that the employees in -question completed flive years in service, on or before 25.11.1993. A mere assertion in this regard is nothing short of an unsupported selr-serving irr'. O]*,, on the part of the Stare and its rnstrument-afiililna cannot be accepted at face value. Further, tf,"-fu.t. in some of the cases on hand clearty demonstiut"-ii a t despite clear vacancies being "r"if"Jf"-, "" 1ir"fV steps were retained were taken. in service Further, for hen decades ,r.tl' togetnlr,'ine"aptov"L, necessity to continue them as per the workload is manifest and clearlv dr rr.tn"'-",ii"..".']i'J,.n""Jii,iiii.t;"t;^li:',ff i,,l: and its instrumentalities are responsible for the situation where it cannot be assessed nt - ur'to fulfilled whether as on Condition the date No.5 of completion in c.o.Vs.ruo.iiz of nuu yu".r siooo-in service by the employees concerned, the benefit of doubt would invariably have to be given to the iaio employees and not to the State. i[ i, p".f,"p, iii, very aspect that weighed with the Supreme Court in B-SRINMSULUT, a"s no mention was made therein of strict compliance with Condifion^--N".i';"

¶72

8

¶73

sN,l W.P.Nc . ot7 L of 2022

¶74

G.O.Ms.No.212, despite the^{saidissue being ) ought} up by the Nellore Municipal^Corporation.

¶75

The question oFthe State^{Exchequerbeing} 'rddled with additional expenditure in^{relationt )such} regularization does not arise,^as the^{relier ,lready} granted to some of the employees in^{thec ] es on} hand is to reckon their services^{upon compl, ion of} five years on or before^{25.11.1993only l)rthe} purpose of their pension and^{pensionary lr nefits.} They are not to be^given any^{monetary beneti n the} form of aTrears of^pay or otherlvise.^{Simill relief} would have to be extended to^{those ernploy:rs who} were non-suited by the Tribunal^{and arebe r re this} Court. As all of them^served the^{State orIts} instru menta lities for decades together,^{exteI iing to} them the benefit of such service^{only for the} I^urpose of pension and^{pensionary benefitscan hardl)e said} to be an onerous burden either^{on the Stat. or the} State Exchequer. Having^utilized their^{ser/ ces all} along, the State and^{its instrumentalitiescar I ot now} turn their back on the loyal^{services1s66 r red by} these employees.

¶76

The learned Government Pleader^{would a I o point} out that some of the O.A.s/writ^{petitions v r re filed} with substantial delay after the^{regularizatictorders} were passed, giving the benefit of^{G'O.Ms No'212} with effect from the stipulated^{dates therein} prospectively. She would assert that suc r^settled matters should not be unsettled^{merelybec i use the} Supreme Court^passed the^{subsequent( rderin} B.SRINMSULUI. It may however^{be noti ed that} the trajectory of developments since^{the is:, ance of} G.O.Ms.No.212, as set^out hert: rbefore, demonstrates that there was^{no consistenc./e ven in} the orders^passed by the^{Tribunal and ti i , Court} Identically situated^{peoplewere treated d l erently.} The narration supra in relation^{to this ver! )atch of} cases demonstrates that the Tribunal^{gave t 1 I benefit} of B.SRINIVASULUI to some and^{denied it i, others.} in such a fluid and uncertain situation,^{an t rployee} cannot be blamed for seeking^{relief even af er lapse} of some years as there was no clarity^as tc^{he legal} position. As the Supreme Court has now s: tled the

¶77

,i

¶78

9

¶79

SN,J W,P.No,20171 of 2022

¶80

same by way oF its decision in B.SRINIVASULUI employees who completed five years of service on ol before 25.11.1993 and were already regulansed in service with prospective effect cannot be found fault with for approaching this Court with some delay so as to seek the benefit of their past service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 at least for the limited purpose oF their pension and pensionary benefits.

¶81

On the above analysis, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B.SRINMSULUl to the employees in this batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service, on or before 25.11.1993, for the purposes of their pension and pensionary benefits. They shall however not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said perlod, in the form of arrears of pay or allowances."

¶82

The relevant^portion of the order of this Court dated L8.LO.2O2l oassed in w.P.No.3235 of 2O19, is extracted hereunder:

¶83

"As the issued was already settled in the aforesaid decisions, the writ petition is allowed by holding that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of service from the date of completion of five years in service on or before 25.11.1993 as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, for the purposes of their pension and pensionary benefits only in terms of judgment of this Court dated 02.05.2018."

¶84

L2. The relevant oortion of the order of this Court, dated 21.1O.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.16228 of 2O2O is

¶85

extracted ereu nder: -

¶86

10

¶87

sN'l W.P.No.i )l7l^{of 2022}

¶88

This Court, having^{regarclto the rival submi';ionsmade} by the^{parties, is of the consideredview tt at the writ} petition can be disposed^{of directing thep t titionersto} submit a^{representationto the respond(rts seeking} regularization of their^{services and onsuch} reIresentation being^{made, the resporr lents shall} consider the same strictly^{in terms of G (" Ms'No 212,} dated 22.04.1994^{and also by duly 161a1nnrto account} the^{judgmentrenderedby the Hon'ble Supr(ffie Court in} a.Siini;asulu's case^{(supra) and passapprc'1 riate orders} in accordance with^{law, withina period of : ree months} from the date of^{receipt of copy of this or: :r' With the} above observations,^{the writ petition is di::' osed of No} costs.

¶89

This Court opines^{that the three spe<:r tic grounds} indicated in the^{order impugned dated 16'09'2021} passed by the respondent^{No.3 herein lr rve already} been dealt with by^{the Division Bench of t lis Court in} its order dated O2.O5.2O18^{passed in W'P' {o'33936 of} 2011 and batch and^{had been held as ur tenableand} rejected and therefore'^{the said three reas;tns raisedin} the^present case^{are declared as untenakrl : and hence} rejected.

¶90

L4. b e th xc to n ir Clau s^(a) and^(b) of^Rule 3of e Rul ate DOri rrv emplovee shall furt er^{saisfv theconitions stl rlated under}

¶91

1l

¶92

SN,J W.P-No.20171 of 2022

¶93

Rul e 14 of the Rule s for countlno !s tem DOrarv servt ce for oensionarv benefits. Rules 13 and 14 of th e Andhra Prad esh Rev ised Pe slonR U es_ 9 8O dea s with the d uali fw no servtce of ate mDo f a em o ovee for the

¶94

DU TDO of Davment of oension which reads as nder: -

¶95

"73. Com encem ent of oualifvinq service: 'ect visi the r ua li I servtce of a Govern ent servant all commen from h ha e ost ow e is fir. inted u orl E temoora caDacitv:

¶96

Provided that -

¶97

(a) in the case of a Government servant in a Class IV service or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent pensionable post prior to the 17h November, 1960, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen ( 16) years shall not count for any purpose; and

¶98

(b) in the case of a Government servant not covered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen (18) years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity.

¶99

14. Conditions subiect to which service oualifies:

¶100

( 1) The setyice of a Government servant sha not qualify unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government.

¶101

(2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression service means service under the Government and paid by the Government from the Consolidated Fund of the State but does not include senrice in a non-pensionabte estabtishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government."

¶102

t2

¶103

sN,l w.P.No ; JLTI^{of 2022}

¶104

The above^{Rules clearly indicates that l:l re request} of the^{petitionerneeds to be reconsidered} 'y^{the 3'd} respondent herein.

¶105

hat the oleaD^{t-fq rth bv the} 16. Thi s Court^{oo r ne5} res nde vl t tm n e rr^qs oft^he Director^{Tel uou} Acad emv, Him avatna lr, dated 16.09 .202L that^{counino of} servl sofane^{r rolovee for} ton nd n o her r er der I nor to the eff tve te fre tlz ton nn be 11 :e ained rs al wit ut b c ra !^{ne law laid} down on th^{e subiecttsue,} hence, this Cour!^oDinesthat h ect issu re s n e ion bv the^3'd respondent herein.

¶106

L7. T into n ra n

¶107

a) The aforesaid^{facts and circumsl lnces of the} case,

¶108

b) The submissions^{made by the lea'nedcounsel} appearing on^{behalf ofthe petitionerrnd learned}

¶109

ll

¶110

SN,J W.P.No.20171 of 2022

¶111

Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents,

¶112

c) The impugned order vide proceedings No.L46/TA/Admn/2O21, dated L6.O9.2O2L passed by the respondent No.3-The Director, Telugu Academy, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad (referred to and extracted above)

¶113

d) The observations of the Apex Court and other Courts in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:

¶114

"B.Srinivalusu and others v Nellore Municipal Corporation Rep.by its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others" reported in 2O15 SCC Online SC L797

¶115

The order of this Court dated O2.O5.2O18 passed in W.P.No.33936 of 2O11 and batch

¶116

The order of this Court dated 18.10.2021 passed in W.P.No.3236 ot 2OL9

¶117

l4

¶118

SN,J W,P.No. OLT l of 2022

¶119

The order of this Court, dated I 1.10.2020 passed in W.P.No.1622A of 2O2O.

¶120

Rule 13 and 14 of the Andhra Prad'e;h Revised Pension Rules, 198O.

¶121

The writ^petation is allowed. The impr 1 rned order vide oroceedinos No.L46/TA/Admn/20: t dated 16.o9.202 1 DA ssed bv the resDondent No.3-The Director. Teluou Academv, Himavatnaqar. ll^,derabad is set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to rel onsider the e est of the etitioner , ization of etitioner's servi WI h .1.1993, in liqht of the iudqment of the Aoex Court _'eported in 2015 SCC Online SC t797 in "8. Srinivasul u and others v. Nellore Municipal Corooration, reores.l rted bv its Commissioner. Nellore District, Andhra lr'adesh and others". Civil Aooeal No. 6318 of :r- )15, dated 17.O8.2O15 and the ivision Bench order t f this Court dated 02.O5.2018 oassed in W.P. No. 331 36 of 2011 and batch and oass oorooriate orders wi t rin a period of four⁽⁴⁾ weeks from the da of recei Dl, of a coov of

¶122

l5

¶123

SN,J W,P.No.2O171 of 2O22

¶124

this order, strictlv in a rdance to Iaw and n conformitv with the DrinciDles of natural iustice and dulv communr cate the decision to the oetitioner.

¶125

Howev r, there shall be no order a s to costs.

¶126

Miscellaneous petitions, ,i[ any, ppndinB in this Writ Petition, sha ll stand closed.

¶127

SD/.S.MALLIKARJUNA^RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR