SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 447

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Dr.T.P.Srinivasan - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No.26890 Of 2023
Decided On : 28-04-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S GOPAL RAO
For the Respondent: GP FOR SERVICES I

Prior temporary service must be counted for pension benefits, as established by law, regardless of regularization date.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Pensionary benefits - Claim for reckoning past service prior to regularization - Petitioner's request for pension calculation from 13-11-1984 rather than 12-08-1993 rejected by government memo - Court held that prior NMR/Temporary service should be counted for pension benefits as per established law - Impugned memo disregarded applicable legal precedents and required reconsideration. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 14)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - Scope - Court found the impugned memo issued without proper consideration of earlier judgments regarding pension eligibility and service reckoning. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as Lecturer in Geology on 13-11-1984, sought pension benefits calculated from this date based on earlier judgments allowing counting of temporary service for pension. The government memo rejected this claim, stating regularization was only prospective.

Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection of the petitioner's claim to be arbitrary and contrary to established law, directing a reconsideration of the pension calculation based on past service.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner’s service prior to regularization could be considered for pension benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prior temporary service is eligible for pension calculation, and the government failed to apply relevant legal principles in rejecting the claim.

Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned memo set aside and respondents directed to reconsider the pension benefits.

Table of Content
1. legal basis for counting past service for pension benefits established. (Para 1 , 8)
2. petitioner claims service reckoning for pension benefits from 1984. (Para 2)
3. court observes issues with memo's reasoning and legal precedents. (Para 4)
4. arguments presented regarding legal precedents on service counting. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

ORDER :

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Sri S. Gopal Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I , appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking the following relief

“… to pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing Memo No. 216/CE/A1/2023, dt.03-07-2023, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reckoning the services of the petitioner with effect from 13-11-1984 when the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Geology (his services were regularized with effect from 12-8-1993) for the purpose of fixation of pensionary benefits as per the law laid down by Honourable High Court of Telangana in W.P. No.33936 of 2011 and batch, dt. 02-05-2018, wherein it is held that even NMR/Temporary services prior to the regularization of service shall also be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to refix the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner by reckoning his service rendered by the petitioner with effect from 13-11-1984, notionally and confer all consequential benefits and pay the arrears thereof with interest to the petitioner and to pass...”.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Geology on a part time basis in Bhavan’s New Science College (Day), Narayanaguda, Hyderabad vide proceedings, dated 21.12.1981 and was continued up to March, 1982. The petitioner applied for the regular post of Lecturer in Geology in the same college and was selected by the Selection Committee by the order dated 13.11.1984 and approved by Osmania University on 19.11.1984. But the petitioner was appointed in a vacancy admitted in a grant-in-aid, thereby entitled for regularization of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.905, dated 29.9.1976 and also entitled for pay and allowances. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has issued proceedings bearing G.O.Rt.No.739, dated 07.10.2004, regularizing the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in Geology in the same college with effect from 12.08.1993.

3 (i) It is further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the said decision, on an earlier occasion the petitioner filed W.P. No.21442 of 2004 and it was dismissed on 10.09.2018 and the same was confirmed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2022. However, the petitioner is entitled for reckoning of his service with effect from 13.11.1984 when he was initiated appointed as Lecturer though his services were regularized with effect from 12.8.1993. In view of the law laid down by this Court in W.P. No.33936 of 2011 and batch dated 02.05.2018 the NMR/Temporary service prior to regularization of service shall be counted for the purpose of fixation of pension and pensionary benefits. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.09.2022 to refix his pension and pensionary benefits by reckoning his service benefits with effect from 13.11.1984. However, the 1st respondent issued impugned proceedings bearing Memo No.216/CE/A1/2023, dated 03.07.2023, dated 03.07.2023 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD

(A) The impugned Memo No.216/ CE/ A1/ 2023, dated 03.07.2023 issued by the Secretary to Government to the 2nd respondent is extracted hereunder.

“GOVERNMEN

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top