SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(AP) 114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY & M.S.K. JAISWAL, JJ.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Finance & Planning (FW.Admin.II) & Others – Petitioners
Versus
M. Raja Rao & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8201 of 2016
Decided On : 17-03-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Government Pleader for Services (A.P).
For the Respondents:R1, D.Y. Karunakar Dayanidhi, Advocate.

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 - Rules 13 and 14 – Employment and service - Pension - Employment Exchange - Daily wage - Writ petition is filed for Certiorari to quash order on file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative - Government Pleader for Services appearing for petitioners and counsel representing respondent alleged Caveator - Respondent was appointed temporarily was absorbed as Junior Auditor against regular vacancy on - His services were regularized in said cadre and was further promoted to post of Senior Auditor and has retired from service on attaining age of superannuation - Even before retirement made a representation on to petitioners requesting them to count temporary service rendered by him in cadre of Junior Auditor prior to his absorption - As no order was passed on his representation has approached Tribunal by way of abovementioned O.A - On consideration of rival pleas of the parties Tribunal has allowed O.A by impugned order - Feeling aggrieved thereby petitioners filed this writ petition - Deal with qualifying service of a temporary employee for the purpose of payment of pension - Held, It is further respectfully submitted that applicant made a representation while was in service on to all concerned authorities of his department Regional Director of State Audit Director of State Audit AP Hyderabad and to Secretary to Government for Finance department Hyderabad A.P while explaining his case for counting his four years daily wage service for purpose of his pensioner benefits requested to count his four years daily wage service for purpose of his pensioner benefits - Government of AP by way of reminder also asked Director of State Audit AP Hyderabad to furnish his remarks in matter - Thereafter due to acute ill health could not pursue matter further but on made a representation Right to Information Act seeking information on what action was taken in his case - Writ petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is filed for Certiorari to quash order, dated 13.08.2015, in O.A.No.2675 of 2014 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Services (A.P.) appearing for the petitioners and Sri D.Y. Karunakar Dayanidhi, learned counsel representing respondent No.1, the alleged caveator. Respondent No.1 was appointed temporarily as Junior Auditor in the office of the District Audit Officer, State Audit, Anantapur on daily wage basis, after he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange under proceedings Rc.No.586/A1/1986, dated 12.07.1986. Thereafter, he was absorbed as Junior Auditor against regular vacancy on 04.08.1990. His services were regularized in the said cadre and he was further promoted to the post of Senior Auditor and has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2011. Even before the retirement, he made a representation on 20.01.2011 to the petitioners, requesting them to count the temporary service rendered by him in the cadre of Junior Auditor prior to his absorption. As no order was passed on his representation, he has approached the Tribunal by way of the abovementioned O.A. On consideration of the rival pleas of the parties, the Tribunal has allowed the O.A by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, ‘the Rules’) deal with the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the purpose of payment of pension. These Rules read as under:

“13. Commencement of qualifying service: Subject to the provisions of the rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity:

Provided that –

(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 pernsionable post prior to the 17th November, 1960, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen years shall not count for any purpose; and

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

14. Conditions subject to which service qualifies:

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

(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 service in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government.”

From the above reproduced Rules, it is clear that qualifying service of a Government servant commences from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity, subject to the exceptions contained in clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 13 of the Rules. A temporary employee shall further satisfy the conditions stipulated in Rule 14 of the Rules for counting his temporary service for pensionary benefits. Under this Rule, unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government or under the conditions determined by the Government, such service was not qualified for pension. The meaning of the word “service” under sub-Rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Rules is explained in sub-Rule (2) thereof, as per which the service is under the Government and the salary is paid by the Government from the Consolidated Fund of the State, but the same does not include the service of a non-pensionable establishment, unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government.

In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the duties of respondent No.1 and his pay were






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top