Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
B. Sugandha – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
W.P. No. 22076 of 2020
Decided On : 27-10-2022
Writ of Mandamus - Voluntary Retirement - A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 - Rule 43, Rule 54 - The court discussed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request for condoning the EOL period for voluntary retirement for pensionary benefits. The court highlighted the recommendations of the 1st respondent, the government's permission to sanction the EOL on medical grounds, and the lack of justification for rejecting the petitioner's request. The court referred to the legal principle that VRS benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of property to the employee concerned once the application for VRS is accepted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher, sought voluntary retirement under Rule 43 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The District Educational Officer rejected the request for release of pension due to not completing 20 years of qualifying service. The petitioner approached the A.P.A.T. and the government accorded permission to sanction the EOL on medical grounds. However, the Special Chief Secretary to Government rejected the request for condoning the EOL period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was passed without proper consideration of the recommendations and permissions granted by the government. The court opined that the rejection of the petitioner's request lacked justification and was not sustainable. The court referred to the legal principle that VRS benefit is an entitlement and cannot be denied without authority of law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's request for condoning the EOL period for voluntary retirement for pensionary benefits, the government's permissions and recommendations, and the entitlement of VRS benefit to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's request lacked justification and was not sustainable. The court emphasized that VRS benefit is an entitlement and cannot be denied without authority of law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the 5th Respondent was directed to release pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner in accordance with the law. The court dismissed any pending miscellaneous applications.
ORDER :
1. Heard the Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Government Pleader for School Education.
2. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the entire action of the respondents, particularly the entire action of the 1st respondent in issuing the present impugned order vide Memo No. 575/Ser. II/A1/2015, dated 08.09.2020 wherein rejecting the genuine request of the petitioner including recommendations of the 2nd and 3rd respondents for condoning the EOL period for one year five months 27 days which is short fall of qualifying services of 20 years for voluntary retirement for pensionary benefits, having allowing the petitioner to retire from service voluntarily w.e.f. 01.07.1999 under Rule 43 of Revised Pension Rules by the 3rd respondent vide his orders dated 15.07.1999 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and clear violative of orders of erstwhile A.P. Administrative Tribunal, dated 20.03.2014 in O.A. No. 5093 of 2013, to direct the 5th respondent to release pension and other retiral benefits by duly accepting the pension proposals submitted by the 4th respondent by condoning the EOL period.
3. PERUSED THE RECORD:
4. The Order impugned in the present Writ Petition reads as under:
SCHOOL EDUCATION (SER. II) DEPARTMENT
Memo No. 575/Ser. II/A1/2015
Dated 08.09.2020
Subject: SE Deptt. Request of Smt. B. Sugandha, SGT, Voluntarily retired from Service, Govt. Girls High School. Rezimental Bazar No. 1, for Condoning the EOL period for (01) year (05) months (27) days which is shortfall of qualifying services of 20 years for voluntary retirement for pensionary benefits-Rejected-Reg.
Ref:
1. From the C&DSE, Hyd. Lr. No. 171/Ser. IV-1/2014, dated 02.01.2015.
2. Govt. Memo No. 575/Ser. II/A1/2015-1, dated 21.06.2016.
3. Representation of Smt. B. Sugandha, SOT, (Vol. Retd.) Govt. Girls High School, Rezimental Bazar No. 1 addressed to the DEO, Hyderabad, dated 28.02.2018.
4. Govt. Memo No. 575/Ser. 11/A1/2015, dated 19.03.2018
5. From the Government Pleader of Services (TS), High Court, Hyd. Lr. No W.P. No. 9774/2017/Services, dated 12.06.2018.
6. From the C&DSE, Hyd. Lr. Rc. No. 171/Ser. IV-3/2014, dated 26.06.2018.
7. Govt. Memo No. 575/Ser. II/A1/2015, dated 31.07.2018.
8. From the DSE, Hyd. Lr. Rc. No. 171/Ser. IV-3/2014, dated 25.03.2019.
9. Govt. Memo No. 575/Ser. II/A1/2015, dated 09.05.2019.
10. From the CSE, Hyd. Lr. Rc. No. 171/Ser IV-3/2014, dated 17.12.2019.
(1) The attention of the Commissioner of School Education, Telagnana, Hyderabad is invited to the references cited and he is informed that request of Smt. B. Sugandha, SOT, Voluntarily retired from Service, Govt. Girls High School, Rezimental Bazar No. 1 for condoning the EOL period for (01) year (05) months (27) days in relaxation of Rule 43 of Revised Pension Rule,1980 for releasing of pensionery benefits is examined in detailed and found not feasible for consideration, since Government do not agree for any relaxation of pension rules pertaining to service prescription.
(2) The Commissioner of School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action in the matter.
(3) This Memo, issued with the concurrence of the Finance (HRM.V) Dept. vide, their U.O. No. 0095/11/A1/HRM.V/2020, dated 17.02.2020.
(4) Original Service Register is returned herewith received vide reference 10 cited and acknowledge the receipt of the same.
CHITRA RAMCHANDRAN
SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
5. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE:
6. The Petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement was considered by the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad and vide proceedings in Rc. No. 7783/C2/99, dated 15.07.1999, the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad was pleased to permit the petitioner herein - Smt. B. Sugandha, Assistant Teacher, Government Girls High School, Regimental Bazar No. 1, Secunderabad to retire voluntarily on private affairs w.e.f. 01.07.1999 under Rule 43 of A.P. Revised
VRS benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of property to the employee concerned once the application for VRS is accepted.
Validity of voluntary retirement and entitlement to pension benefits under A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent No.4 is entitled to pension benefits as her application for voluntary retirement ought to have been accepted in the year 2003 i....
It is necessary to go into the issue of whether the EOL / deputation period need to be regularized in the facts. The issue of grant of retiring pension on retirement under FR 56(k) is governed by Rul....
The court ruled that a minimum of 15 years of service is not required for an application for voluntary retirement under Rule 56(k); however, 20 years is necessary for pension eligibility.
Point of Law : If the respondents are permitted to revisit such orders, it would lead to uncertainty for those who would want to arrange their affairs after having made a request, as per the extant l....
An employee has the right to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement before the jural relationship of employee and employer comes to an end.
The pension and other retiral benefits are valuable rights and property in the hands of the government servants. Any delay in settlement and disbursement should be viewed seriously, and heavy interes....
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
