Delay in the regularization of services by the government resulted in the deprivation of pension benefits, with the court ruling for consideration of the petitioner's representation for rightful benefits.

ORDER :

PULLA KARTHIK, J.

Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner w.e.f.01.02.2003 or 09.08.2004 and consequently depriving the petitioner of his pension benefits, the present writ petition is filed.

2) Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Mudiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

3) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Post-Graduate in English, did his Ph.D. and was appointed as a Part Time lecturer in respondent No.4 college in the year 1985. Thereafter, in November, 1992, he was orally terminated from the said post. Questioning the said termination, petitioner filed W.P. No.20370 of 1993 and the said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 04.04.2002. Writ Appeal No.1432 of 2002 filed by the respondents was also dismissed vide judgment dated 30.09.2002. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that one Sri P.Pratap Reddy, who was working as Lecturer in English in respondent No.4 College was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2002 and the said vacancy was taken note by this Court in its order dated 04.04.2002. In compliance of the order dated 31.01.2002 and judgment dated 30.09.2002, respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 07.02.2003 and 30.07.2003 directing respondent No.4 College to appoint the petitioner as Part Time Lecturer in first instance and then to send proposals for regularization of his services. In pursuance to the same, respondent No.4 College took a decision on 11.08.2003 to engage the petitioner again as Part Time Lecturer (English) and accordingly he was employed from 19.08.2003. Further, after calling for required particulars, respondent No.2 has issued proceedings in Rc.No.333/Admn./VII- 1/1994, dated 21.09.2004, regularizing the services of the petitioner as lecturer in English as a special case in the existing grant-in-aid vacancy in respondent No.4 College w.e.f.21.09.2004. Learned senior counsel has contended that all the colleagues of the petitioner who joined the service prior to 15.10.1997 have the benefit of pension apart from several other benefits under Revised Pension Rules, 1980. But, in view of the policy decision taken by the Government to dispense with pension from 01.09.2004, the petitioner is deprived of his pension and other benefits. Learned senior counsel has vehemently contended that if the regularization of the petitioner was made effective atleast from 09.08.2004, on which date the Government took a decision to regularize the services of the petitioner by issuing G.O.Rt.No.494, dated 09.08.2004, the petitioner would have the benefit of pension. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the cases of one Dr. R.V. Anuradha, Dr. A. Dayamani and Smt. M.S. Bhagyamma, whose cases were considered for notional promotion for the purpose of pension and contended that the petitioner is also entitled for similar relief. Therefore, the learned senior counsel prayed this Court to allow the writ petition.

Reliance has been placed on:

1) Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh , (2020) 2 SCC 569

2) The Government of A.P. v. N. Venkaiah , [2018 (4) 6 (D.B.)]

3) Common Order dated 27.12.2024 passed in I.A. No.2 of 2024 in W.P. No.34923 of 2016 & batch.

4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader, while admitting the fact that the petitioner has bee