Temporary service must be counted as qualifying service for pension benefits under the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980.

ORDER :

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I Iappearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:

“….to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the indecision of the Respondent Department in not taking any steps to count the temporary service rendered on contract basis by the petitioner from the year 08-01-2002 to 25-04-2006 in the Respondent Department to sanction regular pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980, on retiring from service on 31-05-2016 due to indecision of respondent Department from 16 long years as highly illegal, unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the past service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis from the year 08-01-2002 to 25.04.2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qualifying service to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rules 1980, with arrears along with interest from the date of retirement of petitioner w.e.f., 30.04.2018 on attaining age of superannuation with all consequential monetary benefits by awarding exorbitant costs against respondents for their indecision for 16 long years in forcing the petitioners to approach this Hon'ble Court for justice to apply the judgments rendered in the similarly situated cases in W.P.No.11735 of 2019, dt. 06.02.2023 and the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devarakonda Srilakshmi Vs Government of A.P., (2010 2 ALID 165) under Article 141 of our Constitution in the present case treating the petitioner as similar to them not as dissimilar as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.6260-6261 of 2021, dt. 26.10.2021, (2021 (6)ALD 285(SC)and pass such order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as under:

The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents to count the past service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis from the year 08-01-2002 to 25.04.2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qualifying service to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rules 1980, with arrears along with interest from the date of retirement of petitioner w.e.f., 30.04.2018 on attaining age of superannuation with all consequential monetary benefits by awarding exorbitant costs against respondents for their indecision for 16 long years in forcing the petitioners to approach this Hon'ble Court for justice to apply the judgments rendered in the similarly situated cases in W.P.No.11735 of 2019, dt. 06.02.2023 and the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devarakonda Srilakshmi Vs Government of A.P., (2010 2ALID 165) under Article 141 of our Constitution in the present case treating the petitioner as similar to them not as dissimilar as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.6260- 6261 of 2021, dt. 26.10.2021, (2021 (6)ALD 285(SC).

4. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 24.11.2022 passed in W.P. No.7343 of 2019 and therefore the petitioner herein are entitled for the same relief as extended to the petitioners in W.P. No.7343 of 2019.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned couns