Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.
Katta Venkata Balaji - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary - Respondent
Writ Petition No.24480 Of 2020
Decided On : 28-10-2022
APGENCO - SERVICE REGULATIONS - PAY PROTECTION - FUNDAMENTAL RULE 22(A)(IV) - APPLICABILITY - EMPLOYEES OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS - NOT ENTITLED TO PAY PROTECTION - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a former Police Constable, was appointed as Fireman in APGENCO after submitting a technical resignation. He sought pay protection for his past service as a Police Constable, relying on Fundamental Rule 22(a)(iv) and a Division Bench judgment of the High Court. The APGENCO rejected his request, citing its own Service Regulations, which provide that a re-appointed employee is not entitled to count previous service for any benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to pay protection or any other service benefits for his past service as a Police Constable. It found that the Fundamental Rule 22(a)(iv) and the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, relied on by the petitioner, were not applicable to the APGENCO, which had its own Service Regulations. The court also held that the judgment of the Division Bench was not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to pay protection for his past service as a Police Constable after being appointed as Fireman in APGENCO? 2. Whether the Fundamental Rule 22(a)(iv) and the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, were applicable to the APGENCO?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to pay protection or any other service benefits for his past service as a Police Constable. It found that the Fundamental Rule 22(a)(iv) and the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, relied on by the petitioner, were not applicable to the APGENCO, which had its own Service Regulations. 2. The court also held that the judgment of the Division Bench was not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed for counting his past service rendered by him in the post of Police Constable.
ORDER :
1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Memo No.CV&SO/SO/AS.Vig/F.No.1037/2017, C.No.534/2017, D.No.280/17, dated 28.12.2017 issued by the respondent-Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited (APGENCO) as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and, consequently, prayed to hold that the petitioner is entitled for counting total service rendered by him in the post of Police Constable by duly extending pay protection for the service rendered by him in the post of Police Constable (AR & Civil) consequent on his appointment to the post of Fireman in terms of Fundamental Rule No.22(a)(iv) of the Fundamental Rules read with Rule 26(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, with all consequential and attendant benefits including carry forwarding the leaves, et., by duly extending the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.34269 of 2016 dated 20.10.2016.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was originally recruited as Police Constable (Armed Reserve) with effect from 02.02.2008 and subsequently, he appeared for direct recruitment to the post of Police Constable (Civil) and selected to the said post in Krishna District, vide D.O.No.38/2012, C.No.102/A2/2009, dated 19.01.2012 and while discharging his duties as Police Constable, he applied for the post in the respondent-Corporation, which was notified vide Advertisement No.01/J.S. (PER)/2013 dated 22.04.2013, wherein the respondent-Corporation has invited applications from the eligible candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Fireman and Security Guards and since the petitioner is eligible and qualified for the said post, he selected with Hall Ticket No.32725 and the petitioner was appointed as Fireman, vide proceedings No.G.O.O.No.445/JS (Per)/2016 dated 10.03.2016 with the time scale of pay of Rs.18725-34775 with usual allowances. It is the further case of the petitioner that prior to appointment as Fireman in the respondent-Corporation, he worked as Police Constable (A.R.) and (Civil) for a period of nearly 8 years and according to Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, he is entitled for pay protection. While discharging his duties as Fireman, he made a representation on 28.11.2017 to the respondents 2 and 3 herein requesting to count his past service as A.P.Police Constable to the APGENCO Fireman for the purpose of pension and arrears and to carry forward his leave accounts, GIS and other benefits from A.P.State Police Constable and also to regularize his service for continuation of pension, service and other benefits. The said representation came to be rejected by the respondent-Corporation after careful examination of the Service Regulations, stating that the re-appointment of such person to any service shall be treated in the same way as a first appointment to such service by direct recruitment and all regulations governing such appointment shall apply and all such re-appointments, he shall not be entitled to count any portion of his previous service for any benefit of concession admissible under any regulation or order. Accordingly, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by the said rejection of the representation, the present Writ Petition came to be filed and the petitioner relied on Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and Fundamental Rule 22(a)(iv), which is extracted hereunder for better understanding:-
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that basing on the above said provisions, the petitioner is entitled for pay pro
Employees of public sector undertakings are not entitled to pay protection or other service benefits for their past service under Fundamental Rule 22(a)(iv) or the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rule....
A resignation taken to accept a position within the same department is a technical formality, preserving the employee's previous service rights under the A.P. Revised Pension Rules.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
