Temporary service rendered by an employee can be counted for the purpose of pension if the employee's duties and pay were regulated by the Government and if the employee was paid from the Consolidated Fund of the State.

ORDER :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in OA No. 2889 of 2015 dated 27.4.2017, the present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of certiorari calling for records relating to and connected with OA No. 2889 of 2015 and set aside the order dated 27.4.2017 in the said O.A. by holding that the same is erroneous and contrary to law.

2. The brief facts which led to filing of the present writ petition are as follows:

A batch of Original Applications came to be filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by the applicants therein, who were initially appointed as Vocational Instructors on part-time basis on different dates during the years 1985-1991. Initially they were paid Rs. 15/- per class and they were asked to take 10 classes per week, which was however, enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- per month irrespective of the work load. Thereafter, the Government introduced the Vocational Instructor post to ensure that the students who come out of school would be equipped with the training to eke out their livelihood. About 1,030 Vocational Instructors posts were sanctioned and the applicants therein were engaged as Vocational Instructors. They were selected through selection committees or employment exchanges and were eligible to be appointed as Vocational Instructors. When their services being continued on temporary basis on consolidated pay, a representation came to be made to the Government which led to issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 31 dated 13.2.2009 regularizing the services of 1,030 Vocational Instructors with effect from 13.2.2009. Instead of regularising their services from the date of their initial appointment, their services came to be regularised with effect from February, 2009. The past service of the petitioners as part-time employees in the very same faculty was not taken into consideration for payment of pension. As such, the applicant alongwith others filed OA No. 8904 of 2011 and Batch questioning the action of the authorities in not including the period of service as part-time employees for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits.

3. A counter came to be filed by the authorities disputing the issues raised in the O.As., stating that in view of Rule 10(f) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the applicants are not entitled for the said benefit.

4. However, after hearing all the concerned and relying upon a judgment of this Court in Devarakonda Sri Lakshmi v. Government of A.P., 2010 (2) ALD 165, the Tribunal granted the relief to the applicants therein to the extent of counting the past service prior to their regularisation for the purpose of pension and directed the respondents therein to pass appropriate orders. Thereafter the representation made by the applicants for implementation of the said order came to be rejected on the ground that "to pass appropriate orders" does not mean to accept their request. As such, OA No. 2889 of 2015 and Batch came to be filed which were allowed directing the respondents therein to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Challenging the order in OA No. 2889 of 2015 dated 27.4.2017, the present writ petition came to be filed by the respondents therein.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners would contend that in view of Rule 10(f) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the respondent herein, who is the applicant in OA No. 2889 of 2015, is not entitled for any relief. However, Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent herein, would contend that the law on this issue is well-settled and as such, the respondent herein is entitled for the relief granted to him.

6. The short point that a