Smt. Mula Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[^348e J

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TH STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDE BAD (Special Original urisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTE NTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AN TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESE T

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI J STICE P.SAM KOSHY AN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO 23721 0F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. I\rlula Sunitha, Wo f\il. Rang waamy, aged about 48 years, Occ Process Server, Court of Prl. Dist ct and Sessions Judge, Jogulamma Gadwal r/o H.No.9-5-5/1 , Ramnaga ,^Near Ramalayam Temple, Gadwal, Gadwaal Rural, Jogulamma Gadwal istrict, Telangana State. .,.PETITIONER AN

¶9

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its S l. Chief Secretary to Government, Finance Depa(ment, Dr. B.R.Ambed ar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶10

2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its P ncipal Secretary to Government, Law Department, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Telan ana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

3 The High Court for the State of Telan ana, Rep. by its Registrar General, Hyderabad

¶12

4 The Registrar (Admn), High Court for he State of Telangana, Hyderabad 5 The Additional Secretary to Governm nt of lndia, Itrlinistry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Departmen of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, Ne Delhi

¶13

6 The Pri. District and Sessions Judge, ahabubnagar District 7 The Pri. District and Sessions Judge, ogulamma Gadwal District (Respondent No.5 is the formal party)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the C nstitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fil therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order r direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring th action of the respondents No.1 to 4, having adopted and implemented the overnment of lndia's New Pension Scheme, in not adopting the guideline of the Official lVlemorandum dated 17.2.2O2O issued by the Deputy Secr tary to Government of lndia, vide Ref.No.57l04/2019-P and PW(B), and fficial memorandum under reference No.57lO5l2O21-P and PW(B), dated 03.0 .2023, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, violative to Articles 14, 16, 19,21 an 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and

¶16

consequently direct the respondents to adopt and implement the^guidelines of the Official lvlemorandum dated 17.2.2020 and 3.3.2023, either by making adopting or modifying the Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980 or to issue official memorandum a{ike with the Government of lndia Official Memorandum dated 17.2.2020 and 3.3.2023, so as to give effect to the petitioner herein.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to adopt and implement the official memorandum in Ref . No.57104/2019-P and PW(B) and official nremorandum under referenceNo.5T lAYZO2l -P and PW(B), dated 03.03.2023, issued by the Central Government, by issuing official memorandum or GO so as to give effect to the petitioner herein. pending drsposal of the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VONJARI RAJA SHEKAR REDDY VENKAT RAM REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/s. M.SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES-II Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.3,4,6 & 7: SRI K.V.RAMAN, SC FOR TSHC Counsel for the Respondent No.5: --

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

-iroiffi :-ry{ry,.rE?. 4F=- -'-@-Pl

¶23

n

¶24

THT] HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTCE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SI JUSTICE} SUDDALA CHALAP^{THI RAO}

¶25

W.P.No.2372l O 2025

¶26

OIU)ER,^(pe r Hon'ble^{Sri JusticcSutdola Cha} atfu Rao)

¶27

l{eard Mr.^{V.RajaShekar I(cdy,lcamcd counscllor thc}

¶28

pctitioner, Ms. M.Shalini, leamed^Gover ment l)lcader for Serviccs-ll lbr respondent No.2 and^Mr.K.V.Rama learncti Standing Counscl^lor

¶29

thc High Court lor^{respondcntNos.3, 4, 6} 7. I)erused thc rccord 2. In the tigtrt o[ the^{common or} r passed by this Bcrtclt^on 19.03.2025 in W.P.Nos.22559,¹⁵⁶⁴⁴ and llj98 ol' 2023,^heing

¶30

disposed of vidc separate^commonorder, e prcsent writ pctition^{is also} disposed of in tcrms of^{the aloresaid} mon order. There^{shall be no}

¶31

order as to costs.

¶32

Consequently. miscellaneous Pct^{tions pcnding,if any,shall}

¶33

stand closed

¶34

S .S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE C PYII SECTION OFFICER

¶35

To 1 . The Spl. Chief Secretary to Government, inance Depa nt, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Te anga n a^q creta n at, Hyd e abad^c ta te f Telangana.

¶36

2 The Pri n clpa S cre ary to GoVErnm n w Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State Telangana.

¶37

1. The Registrar General, High Court for the tate of Telangana, Hyderabad 4. The Registrar (Admn), High Cou( for the tate of Telangana, Hyderabad 5. The Additioinal Secretary to Government f lndia, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of nsion and Pensioner's Welfare, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi

¶38

t) The Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Ma bubnager District 7 The Prl. District and Sessions Judge, J lamma Gadwal District. 8 One CC to SRI VONJARI RAJA SHE U REDDY, Advocate [OP cl

¶39

9 TWO C^(. S to G P FoR SERVI C EJ H s h urt for h a tate of Te a gan a a H yde labad tourl

¶40

'10. Two CCs to GP FO R F N N E & PLAN NG, High frurt for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶41

1. One CC to SRI K.V.RAMAN. SC FOR TS c [OPUC] 12. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of the common ord r WP.Nos.22559, 15644 and 11398 of 2023l.

PSK

_o

=-3.|$r

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410812025

ORDER

WP.No.23721 of 2025

aJ?. ;t4
o
v 2 f lE 2015
,(i
'lr
*,

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

4

¶52

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

¶53

THE HON'BLE SRI JUST CE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE N ING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶54

WRIT PETITION NOS.22559 1 644 AND 11398 0F 2023

¶55

COMMON ORDER: Qter^{Hon'bleSri J,} tice Narsing Rao Nandikondo'/

¶56

Since the parties and the iss e involved in batch of these three writ petitions are common, ese three writ petitions are being heard together and dispos d by way of this common order.

¶57

All these three Writ Pe itions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India se king to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more parti ularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the a on of respondent Nos.1 to 4 having adopted and implemented e Government of India's New Pension Scheme and not adoptin the guidelines of the Office Memorandum, dated 17.O2.2O2 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government of India uide Ref.No.57 /04/2019-P & PW (B), and Office Memorand under Ref.No.57 / 05 / 2O2IP&PW(B), dated 03.03.2023, as ar itrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19, 2l and 300of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the spondents to adopt and

¶58

5

¶59

PSK,J&NNR,' wp 225s9 2023&batch

¶60

implement the Office Memorandums, dated^{17.O2.2O2Oand} 03.03.2023, either by adopting or modifying the Telangana State Revised Pensron Rules, 1980 or issuing official Memorandum identica-1 to the Government of india Office Memorandums, dated 17.O2.2O2O and O3.O3.2O23, so as to give effect to the petitioners.

¶61

FACTS OF THE CASE:

¶62

Petitioners before this Court in W.P.No.22559 of 2023 were appointed and working as Junior Assistant(s), Typist(s) and Personal Assistant(s) in the Unit of Dis trict and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar District; similarly petitioners in W.P.No.15644 of 2023 were appointed as Junior Assistant(s), Typist(s), Field Assistant(s), Copyist(s) and Attenclar^(s)/ Process Server(s) in the unit of District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar District and the petitioners in W.P.No.11398 of 2023 were appointed and working as Junior Assistant(s), Typist(s), Field Assistant(s) and Attender(s)/ Process Server(s) in the unit of Prrncipai District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad District and the aforesaid Districts are under the control of the High Court for the State of Telangana. All the^{petitioners were} appointed through direct recruitment vide Notihcation No.1 of

¶63

5

¶64

PSK,]&NNR,] wp_22559_2023&batch

¶65

2004, No.2 of 2OO4, No.5 of 200 No.6 of 2004 and No.7 of 2004, dated 22.01.2OO4 and 19.01 2004 respectively, issued by the Unit Head of Mahabubnagar Di trict.

¶66

For the purpose of d sposal of these three writ petitions, the facts in W.P.No.1564 of 2023 are to be taken into consideration, which read thus:

¶67

It is stated that after co ducting written examination for the said posts, due to Admin strative reasons during said period, appointment letters were elayed and the sarne were issued on 18.O2.2OO5, 18.O2.2O 5 25.O5.200s, 18.03.2005, 26.0 l.2OO5, 26.0l.2OOS and 23.O4 2OO5 respectively.

¶68

It is stated that during elevant period of issuance of aforesaid notifications, the other nits of Principal and District Judges, which were under the con I of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, also issued not ations for Iilling up of posts that arose prior to 31.08.2004 t ose notifications were acted upon and appointment orders wer also timely issued and those persons were covered under Old ension Scheme. But, in the case of combined unit of Di trict and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar District, now di ed into five units, under the control of respondent Nos.6 to 11, stated that issuance of appointment letters before 31.0 .2004 got delayed due to

¶69

1

¶70

PS(,J&NNR,J wp 22s59_2023&bdtch

¶71

Administrative reasons. As a result the petitioners have lost their valuable right to receive pension under Old Pension Scheme, General Provident Fund etc. However, the persons who got selected under corresponding notifications issued during the similar period in other Units under the control of this Court, got covered under Old Pension Scheme benefits. It is only in the case of the petitioners that such a grave prejudice has been caused. It is further stated that in the writ afhdavit that the petitioners have approached appropriate Forums for ventilating their grievance that they are entitled for Old Pension Scheme But so far thelr grievarice has not been settled.

¶72

It is stated that in the budget lbr 2O0i-20O2, th,e Government of India has announced that all New Pension Schemes based on a defined contribution would be implemented in respect o[ Central Government Services including A11 India Services, such as Indian Administrative Senices, Indian Potce Services, inclian Foreign Service etc., after 0i. i0.200i. The combined State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana uide rts G.O.Ms.No.653, Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 22.O9.2OO4 have decided to adopt the Government of India's New Pension Scheme (NPS) based on Defined Contributions for the employees of State, who are newly recruited on or after

¶73

PS(J&NNR,] wp 22s59 2021&barch

¶74

01.09.2004. Under the new Contrib tory Pension Scheme (CPS), each employee has to contri te certain amount and government will contribute ce amount. It is stated that when old pension scheme was p vailed, there was no such contribution required from the emp oyees.

¶75

While the matter tood thus, taking into consideration various representati ns/references and decisions of the Courts and a-fter careful analysis of the same, the Government of India, issued cla ifications that old pension scheme has to be applied ln ca e of candidates, who were selected prior to 01.O1.2004, but heir appointments were got delayed due to administrative rea ons/ constraints.It is further stated that further representati ns were received by the Government of India, after iss ce of officials Memorandum under Reference No.57/04/2O9&PW(B), dated 17.O2.2O2O, from the employees requesting t extend the said benelit of pension on the ground that the a pointment made against the posts/vacancies advertised/notifr d for recruitment prior to notification of National Pension ystem, were referred. to the Judgments of various High Court and Tribunals. Considering the same, respondent No.S has i sued further clarification by way of official Memorandum unde Reference No.57 / OS I 2O2I-P

¶76

9

¶77

PSK,J&NNR,J wp 225s9 2023&batch

¶78

&PW(B), dated 03.03.2023, stating that matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Financial Services, Personnel & Training, Expenditure and Legai Affairs in the light of various representations and decisions of the Court and decided that a,11 cases, where the Central Government Civil trmployees have been appointed against a post or vacancy which was advertised / notified for recruitment/ appointment prior to date of notification for National Pension System i.e., on 22.72.2OO3 and is are covered under NPS on^joining service on or before O 1.01.2004, has given one-time option, rvhich has to be covered under the CCS/(Pension) Ruies, 1972 (now 2021 Rules). The said option exercised by the Government Servants concerned by 3 1.08.2023

¶79

It is further stated that respondent Nos.l to 4 having adopted NPS with effect from Ol.O9 .2OO4 , lravc invariably adopted the necessar5z corrective measures taken by the Central Government by way oi official ivlemoran<ium, ciateci 17.42.2020 and 03.03.2023. It also further stated that when the combined State of Andhra Pradesh adopted Contributory Pension Scheme on 01.09.2004, which was introduced by the Government of India by bringing amendments to Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 vide G.O.MS.No.653, Finance (Pension-I)

¶80

10

¶81

PSK,J&NNR,J wp 22559_2023&batch

¶82

Department, dated 22.O9.2OO4, there is no bar for the e Government of Telangana or t respondents herein to implement the guidelines issued y the Government of India vide Oflicial Memorandum No. 7-O4 12019-P&PW(B), dated 17.O2.2O2O and olficial Memoran um under Reference, dated 03.03.2023. It is also stated that the said clarifications and amendments were brought in t e Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the petiti ners and severa-l similarly situated persons would come und r the purview of old pensron scheme. This is because, in case f the petitioners herein, the vacancies in the posts against wh ch they were appointed had arisen prior to O 1.09.2004, notific tions were also issued prior to Ol.O9.2OO4, but unfortuna ly due to administrative lapses / exigencies on the part o recruiting authorit5r of the concerned Unit aione appointme t letters were issued after OI.O9.2OO4 and the said delay w s only due to administrative lapses.

¶83

It is further stated tha similarly situated employees of Judicial Department, who we qualifred under the same notification issued before OI.O9.2 04 and received appointment letters prior to that date are cur ntly enjoying the benefits of the old pension scheme. But, in he case of^petitioners, if^the

¶84

1t

¶85

PSK,l&NNR,] wp 22559-2023&batch

¶86

respondents will implement the guidelines issued vide Memorandum, dated 17.O2.2O2O and 03.O3.2023, the petitioners u,ould get benefit of Old Pension Scheme and General Provident Fund, as the State Government adopted said scheme only from O 1 .09 .2004. It is stated tl-:.at the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge (Head Quarters) Delhi, in compliance rvith the said Memorandum, dated 03.O3.2023, had issued Circular No.889/ 1 1653- 12653, dated 05.O4.2023, giving opportunity to the employees whose appointments were based on vacancies and notifications issued prior to elfective date of NPS.

¶87

1 1. It is further stated that acting upon various representations of several employees including the petitioners, itseif addressed a letter respondent No.2 No. 166/TLSP/RL/2O2O, dated 05.O6.2O20, to respondent No.3 to furnish information in the month of June, 2020 pertaining to the empioyees of State .iudiciai Ministeriai and Subordinate Services covered by NPS in the prescribed form duiy specifying the vacancy arisen prior to 31.08.2004. Ilasing on that, respondent No.3 called for information from the learned Principal District Judges/Unit Heads vide ROC No.386 l2O2O-C1, dated 0A.06.2020 and in response to the same, respondent

¶88

PSK,]&NNR,., wp_22559-2023&batch

¶89

l2

¶90

Nos.6 to 11 furnished inform tion to respondent No.3 confirming that the petitioners d others are eligible for old pension scheme. But till date no crete steps have been taken by the respondents.

¶91

Lastly, it is contended t at in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of High C urt of Bombay in Khilari Rajendra Eknath and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others in (1V.P.No.227O o 2O2ll oid.e order, dated 2a.O4.2O23 taking into account t e Office Memorandum issued by Union Government, 5'h respo dent, dated 17.O2.2O2O and also the Office Memorandum, ated 03.03.2023 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, New Delhi, and a o considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court i various Judgments, directed the petitioners therein shall be verned by the Old Pension Scheme in vogue prior to O¹ .¹ 2005, as well as General Provident Fund Scheme.

¶92

Whereas W.P.No. 1139 of 2023 was hled by the petitioners seeking the similar reli f sought in W.P.Nos.15644 of 2023. They were appointed a Junior Assistants, Typists, Amin/ Field Assistant, Attenders/ ocess Servers etc in the Unit of Principal District and Sessio s Judge, Nizamabad District

¶93

13

¶94

P5X,J&NNR,J wp_z25s9 2023&batch

¶95

against the vacancy that arose before 31.08.20O4^pursuantto the Notifications, dated L9.OI.2OO4. They appear for written examination and appointed on 11.O7.2OO5, 06.07.2005 and 19.09.2005 respectively. According to the petitioners, the decision to give appointment letters to petitioners^was taken^by the respondents prior to O1.09.2004, but due to administrative exigencies, the seiection process got delayed atrcL as a result of which, the petitioners have lost their valuable right to receive pension under old pension scheme r-rnder corresponding notifications during the similar period. Therefore, the petitioners pray lbr issuance of a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to adopt and implement the Government of India's Neu' Pension Scheme and to implement the guidelines of the Official Memorandum, dated L7.O2.2O2O issued b1, the Deputy Secretary to Government of India vide Ref.No 57 /04 l2Ol9-P&' PW (B), and official Memorandum uncler reference ir-o.5710512O27-P & PW (B), ciated 03.03.2O23.

¶96

Per contra, respondent No.l has decided to adopt New Pension Scheme based on a Defined Contribution's for the employees of the State, who are newly recruited after 01 .09.2004. He further submitted that respondent No. t has issued further clarification vide Ofltce Memorandum

¶97

P5K,I&NNR,J wp_22559_2023&batch

¶98

t4

¶99

Ref.No.57l05 /2o2r-P & Pw (B), d ted 03.03.2023, in all cases where the Central Government ivil Employees have been appointed against a post or vacan es, which were advertised / notified for recruitment / appoin ment, prior to the date of notif,rcation for National Pension s stem i.e., 22.12.2003 and is covered under the National Pensio System even though joining in serrice was on or after 0 i .0 1^. OO4. As these people were given a one time option to be cover d under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 (Now 2O2l). This option xercised by the concerned 4. It is further stated that Government servant by 31.08.20 respondent No. 1 while issuing nec ssary corrective measures to the National Pension Scheme by ay of official memorandum, dated 17.O2.2O2O and O3.03.2O2 has suggested/ advised the State Governments also to adopt he same. It is further stated that the issue of adopting Govern ent of India Memorandum by the State Government of Telang alsa policrg matter and involves a decision whether to amend the statutory Rules Governing pensions namely th Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980, or not, hich is entirely within the purview and domain of the Sta Government and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petitions

¶100

15

¶101

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

¶102

I{eard Sri V.RajaShekar Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. M.Shalini, Iearned Governnrent Pleader for Services-I, appearing for respondent No.1, Mr.Vivek Jain, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for responclent Nos.3, 4, 6 to 1 1. Perused the entire material on record

¶103

The question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is "whether the petitioners are entitled to New Pension Scheme pursuant to the Office Memorandum, dated 17.O2.2O2O, issued by Deputy Secretary to Government of India vide Ref.No.S7lO412O19-P &PW(B) and Office Memorandum under reference No.57lOSl2O21-P&PW(B| dated O3.O3.2O23 introduced by the Government of India".

¶104

L7. The Government of Andhra Prrrdcsh issued G.O.Ms.No.653, Finance (Pension -l) Department, dated 22.09.2004, stating that in the Budget for 2OO|-2O02, the Government of India has announced that a New Pension Scheme based on Defined Contribution will bc' introduced to those who enter Central Government service including the All India Senrices, such as Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Serrice and Indian Foreign Service (Defence, Railways, Posts, Telecom, Autonomous Bodies and Scientific

¶105

16

¶106

PSKJ&NNR,J wp_22559_2023&batch

¶107

Organizations) after 01.10.200 f rther, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh after careful co sideration, decided to adopt the Government of India's New Pension Scheme based on Defined Contributions for the em loyees of the State, who are newly recruited on or after O 1 . 9.2OO4. Under the new Contributory Pension Scheme, eac employee has to contribute certain amount and Governme t may contribute certain amount. The New Contributo Pension Scheme is not applicable to the already existi g/ serving employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh d the amendment was also been made to the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, 'the Rules, 1980) by in rporating sub-rule 2 (g) (i) to the Rules,1980, which reads as u er

¶108

"In the said Rules, in Part-l after te 2 (0 the following shall be added, namely:-

¶109

"(g)(i) These rules shall not apply to I the Government Servants appointed on or after Ol.O9-2OO4, to services and^pos in connection with the affairs of the State which are borne on pensionable e tablishment, whether temporary, or permanent.

¶110

(iil These rules shall not apply all appointments, whether temporary or permanent, made on or ater 01.O9 04 in all the State hrblic Sector Undertakings, whose pay and allowances drawn from the Consolidated Fund of the State or not.

¶111

(iii) These rules shall not apply aII appointments, whether temporary or permanent, made on or after 01.09.2004 of all the tiers of the Rural and Urban l,ocal Bodies such as the Gram Panc ts, MandalParishads, ZillaParishads, Municipalities, Municipal Corporations, rball Development Authorities ,Cooperative and Urban Local Bodies, GrandhalayaSamsthas, Agriculture

¶112

17

¶113

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

¶114

Marketing Conlnittees, including aIl the Universities in the Sttrte, including all^the Institutions functioning under the Universities, rvhose pa.. and allowarlces are drawn from the Consolidated Fund of the State or not.

¶115

(i") 'lhcse Rules shall not appll,to appointments, Hhether temporar)'or permanent made on or after 01.09.2004 into alt the lnstitution:j receiving Grant-inAid from the Govcrnment.

¶116

(u) 'l'hese Rules shall not apply to appointments. w:lether temporary or permanent, made on or after 01.09.2004 to a1l Co-optrative Institutions, Autonomous Clorl)orations, whose pa1, and allo$'ances iuc drawn from thc Consolidated Fund of the State or not."

¶117

With the above factual background, as it is seen that the said G. O. being applicable to all the institu Lions including the High Court for the State of Telangana and rvhich is also applicable to entire District Judiciary. The pel itioners before this Court were appointed under different Notifications, different cadres in the unit of District Judiciary under thc control of the High Court tbr the State of Telangana and the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners are presentlv working in the units o1' the District Judiciary, which are under the Control of the High Court of State of Telangana.

¶118

L9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the Nolification, dated l9.Ol.2OO4, issued by District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, does not mention about the applicability of pension scheme. However, it is alleged that the appointment letters issued by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, stated that the candidates appointcd to the

¶119

18

¶120

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

¶121

respective posts are covered by the ontributory pension scheme and the existing pension scheme s per A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 would not apply to em as per the instructions issued by the Government in G.O. s. No. 655, dated 22.O9.2004

¶122

He further submitted hat the combined State of Andhra Pradesh had adopted Con ributory Pension Scheme on 07.09.2OO4, which was introduce by the Government of India by amendment to Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 vide G.O.Ms.No.653, dated 22.09 004. Therefore, there is no bar for the respondents to imple ent the guidelines issued by the Government of India vide ffice Memorandums, dated 17.O2.2O2O and 03.03.2023. He so further submitted that in case of similarly situated employ es of other units of Judicial Department, who were qualified ursuant to the Notification issued prior to 01.09.2004 and whose posting letters were issued prior to OL.O9.2OO4 and th y are taking the old pension scheme but, in case of petitio ers, due to administrative reasons, they would not get the enefit of old pension scheme and General Provident Fund Sche e as their appointment order is subsequent to 01.09.2004 and ence, he prays to implement the Oflice Memorandums, dated 1 .O2.2O2O and 03.03.2O23

¶123

19

¶124

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

¶125

2L. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for respondent No. I vehemently argued that the applicability of the Pension Scheme is not mentioned in the notification, dated 19.O1 .2OO4 issued bt, District and Sessions Juclge, Nizamabad, but the same was mentioned in the individual appointment letters that the candidatr:s appointed to post is coverecl by Contributory Pension Scheme and the existing pension scheme as per A. P. Revised Pension Rules, 198O will not be applicable to them as per the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.655, dated 22.09.2OO4. She further contended that the petitioners having knowledge about non applicability of the provisions of the A. P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Now they cannot clarm that their appointments are subject to applicability of o1d pension scheme As a result their claim for applicability of the old scheme is not acceptable. He further contended that the said Oflice Memorancium, ciateci i7.O2.2A2O anci G.O.iVis.i'io.655, ciateci 22.O9.2OO4 are subsequent to the Office Memorandum, dated 03.03.2023 which was not adopted by the Government of Telangana. Therefore, the respondents case is that these office Memorandum were not adopted by Government of Telangana, which is issued by the Deputy Secretar5l to Government of India

¶126

20

¶127

PSK,.I&NNR,J rvp 22S59 2023&batch

¶128

vide Ref.No.57 / 04 I 2Olg-P&Pw(B), wherein at Paragraph No.4,

¶129

it was held was under:

¶130

"The matter has been examined in nsultation with the Department of Personnel & Training Department of Expend ure and Department of Legal Alfairs in the light of the various representations/re rences and decisions of the Courts rn this regard. It has been decided that in all c ses where the results for recruitment were declared before 01.01.2004 against vacancies occurring on or before 31.12.2OO3, the candidates declared success for recruitment shall be eligrble for coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 972. Accor dingly, such Government servants who were declared successful for re itment in the results declared on or before 31.12.2003 against vacancies occurrr g before 01.01.2004 and are covered under the National Pension System on^joini service on or after O1.0.2004, may be given a one-time option to be covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This option may be exercised by the concer ed Government servants latest by 31_ .O5.2020."

¶131

Accordingly, the Government s rvants who were declared successful for recruitment in the esults declared on or before 3L.L2.2OO3 against vacancles o rring before O 1.01.20O4 and are covered under the National Pe sion System but have^joined service on or after 01.01.2004 m be given one time option to be covered under the CCS Pensi n ntles, 7972. This option may be exercised by the CONCE ed Government servants not later than 3L.O5.202O, the optio so exercised shall be final. Furthermore, in paragraph No.5 o the said office Memorandum, stated that those Government ervants who are eligible to exercise option in accordance wit paragraph No.4 above, and

¶132

21"

¶133

PSK,I&NNR,I wp 22559- 2023&barch

¶134

whoever did not exercised this option by the stipulated date, shall continue to be covered by the National Pension System.

¶135

Further, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Pension ancl Pensioners' Welfare vide Ofhce Memorandum dated 03.O3.2023 has issued certain guidelines mainly applicability of the Old Pension Scheme by providing them opportunity to are exercise thelr one time option the relevant paragraphs extracted below:

¶136

"ll . Rep re se ntations have becn received in this Ilepartment from the Government seryants appointed on or after 01.O1.2004 requesting for extending the beneht of the pension scheme under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, i972 (now 201)1) on the ground that their appointment was made against the posts/vacancies advertised/ notlfied for recruitment prior to notification for National Pension System, referring to court judgments of various Honble High Court and Honlle Central Administrative Tribunal allowing such benehts to applicrrnts.

¶137

4 The matter has been examined in consullation wrth the Department of Financial Senices, Department of Personnel & Training, Department of Expenditure and Departmen: of Legal Alfairs in the light of the various representatiorls,/ refe r,:n ces and decisions of the Courts in this regard. It has now been decided that, in all cases where the Central Government Civil enlployee has been appointed against a post or vacarcy ',r,hich was advertised/ notihed for recruitment/apporntment, prior to the date of notification for Natioaal Persiou System i.e., 22.12.2003 and is covered under the National Pension System on joining service on or after 01.01.2004, may be given a one-time option to be covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now

¶138

22 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_22559 2023&batch

¶139

be 2021)- This option rnay ercised by the concerned Government seryants latest b 31.O .2023.

¶140

In the present case, a ittedly amendment of Rule 2(g) (i) to the Andhra Pradesh Revis d Pension Rules, 19BO come into force on 01.09.2OO4. In cases where the Central Government Civil employee have b en appointed against a post or vacancy which was advertised/ notified for recruitment/ appointment, prior t the date of notification for National Pension System I e 2,12.2OO3 and is covered under the National Pension Syste on joining service on or after OL.OL.2OO4, may be given a on time option to be covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, l9 2 (now 2O2l). Further, the Notifications, dated 19.Ol.2OO4 d 22.O5.2004, issued by the District and Sessions Judge, N abad, were prior to date of applicability of the said amen ment i.e., O1.O9.20O4, the process was done after 01.09.2 04 so far as the order of appointments is concerned. It a pears that the entire process got delayed for the reasons bes known to the respondents. Even otherwise Notification w issued on 19.01.2004, obviously at best, it might have ommunicated much prior to OI.O9.2OO4 as entire process h took place for about 7 to 8 months and the petitioners were elected in the month of July,

¶141

23

¶142

P5(,J&NNR,I wp_22559 2023&batch

¶143

2005 and they were posted ln varlous departments and^the entire selection process has taken place much prior^to 11.07.2005. The said vacancies which is saicL to have been notified would be much prior to the date of 31.^I 2.2OO3^though notification was subsequent to 01.01.2004. [n respect of the vacancies that arose on or after O 1.01.2004 New Pension Scheme would not apply to the candidates as very amendment to A.P.Revised Pension Rules,1980 is made applicable only to the appointments by temporary, which had tnade on or after o1.o9.2004.

¶144

In the present case, though appointmcnt letters were issued subsequent to 07.O9.2OO4, the entire process of recruitment was made after O 1.09.2004.^'l'herefore, the vacancies notified would pertain to those thal arose before 3l .12 .2OO3 . As such the contention of the^pet itioners holds good and this bench has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the appointments which made in respect of the present notifications the appllcability to the New Pension Scheme cannot be accepted and the petitioners who are appointed under said notifications and whose vacancies arose ntuch prior to 31.12.2OO3 would squarely fall within the purview of A.P.Rerrised Pension Rules, 198O

¶145

24

¶146

P5K,J&NNR,J wp_22559 2023&batrh

¶147

Learned counsel for he petitioners relied on a judgment of the High Court of ombay in Khilari Rajendra Eknath and others v, the State of Maharashtra and others (W.P.No.227O of 2O2ll, dated 2 .O4.2O23.wherein the High Court of Bombay held that the provisions of Old Pension Scheme are required to be appli ble in respect of vacancies which arose prior to O | .Ol .2OO4 and placed reiiance on the Office Memorandum issued by e Government of India on 03.O3.2023 giving one time optio to the Central Government employees who's results were de ared successful for the said recruitment on or before 31.12.2 O3 as against the vacancies which occurred before O 1.01.2OO The High Court of Bombay by relying upon the^judgments of he Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avinaah Singh v. Union of Ind 1 and Parmanand Yadav v. Union of India2, while allowing e writ petition observed that the petitioners therein will be gov rned by the provisions of the Old Pension Scheme in vogue p or to O 1. I 1.2005, as well as General Provident Fund Scheme Further, the petitioners shall not be governed by the provision of the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme introduced vide R., dated 31.10.2005. The petitioners' contribution to DC be credited to their GPF

¶148

1 (2011) SCC Online Del 2432

¶149

'z^{(2015)SCCOnlineDel7274}

¶150

25

¶151

P5K,I&NNR,,, wp- 22559 2023&batch

¶152

Accounts. The modalilties as suggested in paragraph No.8 of the Office Memorandum, dated 03.03.2003 issued by the Government of India shall be adopted while switching over petitioners from DCPS to Old Pension Scheme. In Prafulla Kumar Swain Etc. v. Prakash Chandra Misra and others3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the recruitment cannot tantamount to appointment. Basing on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaji Nagnath Lokare and others v. State of Maharashtra and othersa. it was observed that the appointment cannot be read to rnclude the rvords 'selection, recruitment or recruitment process'. Pursuant to the entire material on record, this bench is of the opinion that the petitioners would fa1l within the 'Oid Pension Scheme' and New Pension Scheme will not be applicable for the reason that the entire selection process had commenced prior to OLO9.2OO4 and continued till 02.08.2005. Admittedly, the said notihcation AS is pertaining to vacancies that eLrose prior to 3i .i2.2443 , such, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be considered under Old Pension Scheme and the A.P.Revised Pension Rules would be applicable.

¶153

3 1993 SCC Supl.(3) 181 o (zorz)s vtr.t.t.gsa

¶154

26

¶155

PSK,J&NNR,J wp_22559_2023&batch

¶156

Learned counsel for th petitioners has pointed out and brought to the notice of this Court regarding the letter, dated 08.06.2020 addressed by t Registrar (Administration), to all the learned Principal Distric Judges/Unit Heads calling for information pertaining to em loyees covered by National Pension System (CPS) in the pres ibed proforma, which reads as under:

¶157

"Adverting to the subject reference cited, I am to request you to furnish the informati n pertaining to employees o[ State Judicial Ministerial and Sub rdinate Serviccs covered by National Pension System (CPS), i the prescribed proforma {enclosed^{herewith) by return FAX fo} onward transmission of the sarne to the Secretary to Gove t, Law (LA, LA & J) Department, Telargana Secreta-riat, yderabad."

¶158

The opinion of this be ch is that the case of the petitioners herein would fall with the Old Pension Scheme. But considering the fact that ther is no information submitted by either of the respondents in espect of opportunity being given to the petitioners to exer e their options, we feel it desirable ald appropriate that he respondents shall seek options as a one time measure fro all the petitioners, who are w11 covered under the present petitions and any other employees who are recruited and whose selection process was commenced prior to Ol.O9.2OO4 against the vacancies which

¶159

27

¶160

PSX,J&NNR,' wp 22559 2023&batch

¶161

had arisen much prior to 31.12.2003. Consequently respondents shall take further steps accordingly and make applicability of the relevant pension rules to the petitioners as opted by them, which are applicable to them as per the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay in l{hilari Rajendra Eknath's case (supra). It is further directed that the entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

¶162

2a. With the above observations, these three Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sha1l stand closed

¶163

JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶164

JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶165

Date: 19.O3.2025 Note:

¶166

L.R.copy to be marked (B/o) WL

Smt. Mula Sunitha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

Smt. Mula Sunitha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Citizen Coop. Soc. Ltd., Hyd Vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyd

M/s. Ups Scs India Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Marble House Vs The State of Telangana

Sri P.Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Yeturu Bio Tech Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

M/S Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax