ORDER :

1. Issue which falls for consideration is whether the widow of a deceased employee, who worked as an NMR in Kurnool Municipal Corporation since 1996 was entitled to pension in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1980 Rules’).

2. Relevant facts giving rise to the aforesaid issue are as follows:

One G. Ramanjaneyulu, deceased employee, was appointed as a daily wage worker/NMR in Kurnool Municipal Corporation on 01.08.1988. He was given minimum grade time scale of pay and annual increments upon pay revision on and from 01.07.1996. On 12.06.2008, his services were regularised prospectively. In the meantime, vide G.O.Ms. No. 653, dated 22.09.2004, the Government announced a new Contributory Pension Scheme which was made applicable to all employees, who are appointed on or after 01.09.2004. It was clarified that the scheme will not be applicable to existing/serving employees. The employee expired in 2012 and the petitioner, who is widow, made an application for release of family pension, gratuity and other death benefits as per the 1980 Rules by treating the qualifying service of the employee from 1996. The claim of the widow was supported by the Municipality, who claimed that the deceased employee ought to be treated in service on and from 01.07.1996 and his legal heirs are entitled to family pension in terms of the 1980 Rules. The Audit Department raised objection on the following grounds:

“1. As verified from Service register Vol-1, Pg. No. 13 it is noticed that the individual was regularised prospectively in the category of PH worker against existing vacancy vide G.O. Rt. No. 856 MA&UD (D1) Department, dated 12.6.2008 are permit to commissioner to regularize w.e.f. the date of issue or order with prospective effect.

2. As per the individual appoint in PH worker post and joined on 4.9.2008 and he was not eligible for A.P. Revised Pension Rules 1980. The individual come under C.P.S. Scheme.”

Hence, the claim of the petitioner was denied and she was constrained to approach the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2643 of 2015. As her case did not find favour with the Tribunal she is presently before this Court.

3. Sri. P. Amarender, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argues that the deceased employee was in the pay of the Government since 1996. He had been granted minimum time scale of pay along with annual increments as revised from time to time. Although his services may have been regularised prospectively in 2008, for the purposes of pensionary benefits, he ought to have been treated in service on and from 01.07.1996 and governed by the 1980 Rules. The Tribunal erred in refusing family pension to her with reference to 2004 Contributory Pension Scheme which could not apply to existing employees.

4. Per contra, Ms. Sumathi, learned Government Pleader for the State, draws our attention to G.O.Ms. No. 856, dated 12.06.2008, whereby on the recommendation of the Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation dated 11.07.2007, the employee along with other 37 NMRs were regularised prospectively. She also refers to Memo dated 01.09.1997 wherein it is clarified that for counting the period of service for pension or for any other purpose, the period prior to the effective date of regularisation cannot be acted upon. Hence, the prior service of the deceased employee as NMR could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining pensionary benefits and his case was rightly considered under the Contributory Pension Scheme.

5. Pension is not a bounty given by the State to its employees. It is a right available to a superannuated employee and thereafter to his family as family pension (if the rules permit) for the past services rendered.

6. The 1980 Rules laid down the provisions for grant of pension including family pension to the employees in the State including those employed by municipality. Rules 13 and 14 of the 1980 Rules defined the nature of service which would be countenanced as