IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Pulla Karthik, J.
T. Yakaiah 57 others – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.14315, 14588, 14641, 15944, 18962 OF 2021, 42532 of 2022 and 9131 of 2024
Decided On : 20-12-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's ruling on cut-off date (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. writ petitions dismissed (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
Pulla Karthik, J.
Since the lis raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together, heard and being disposed of by this common order.
2) Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel, representing Ms.Vedula Chitralekha, Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, Sri M.Ramgopal Rao and Sri N.Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners respectively, and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.
3) The main grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is to direct the respondents to implement the recommendations of Pay Revision Commission Report-2020 extending the enhanced gratuity and difference of Earned Leave salary to the petitioners, who retired between 01.07.2018 and 01.04.2020, on par with the pensioners, who are drawing the enhanced gratuity/encashment of earned leave w.e.f.01.04.2020.
4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners respectively have submitted that the petitioners herein have worked in various departments of the State Government and High Court and have retired on attaining the age of superannuation on various dates, subsequent to 01.07.2018 and prior to 31.03.2020. Further, at the time of retirement, the terminal benefits like Leave Encashment, Retirement Gratuity, etc. were paid to the petitioners basing on the payscales prevailing by that time and also they are in receipt of pension basing on the salary drawn by them at the time of their retirement, in accordance with Rules. It is further submitted that the Government of Telangana has constituted its First Pay Revision Commission (in short ‘Pay Commission’) vide G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 18.03.2015, and the Pay Commission has submitted its report on 31.12.2020. After considering the entire matter, the Government has decided to implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission and accordingly issued several GOs including G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 11.06.2021. As per the said G.O., the notional benefit has been given to the employees, who retired subsequent to 01.07.2018 and prior to 31.03.2020. The notional benefit has been given from 01.07.2018 and monetary benefit from 01.04.2020. Further, the revised consolidated basic pension is also given effect from 01.07.2018 notionally and the monetary benefit was allowed from 01.04.2020. However, at para 4(e) thereof, it has been clarified that no dues of retirement gratuity/Encashment of Earned Leave was allowed in case of employees, who retired between 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 11.06.2021, the maximum limit of retirement gratuity has been raised from 12 lacs to 16 lacs and the method of calculation of gratuity remains the same as per G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 30.01.1999. It is further submitted that though the Revised Pay Scales (RPS) were given effect from the month of March, 2020, it has been notionally extended w.e.f.01.07.2018 for the purpose of calculation of pension/family pension. The commutation value of pension has already been permitted under G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 11.06.2021, whereby the commuted value of pension of an employee will be effected consequent upon the implementation of the PRC. Further, all the petitioners herein have retired between 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020 and they have already received gratuity and also leave encashment and also commuted value of 40% pension. Therefore, under G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 11.06.2021, they are entitled to have the benefit of revision of commuted value of pension basing on the revised pay. However, basing on the pay revision w.e.f.01.07.2018, the differential amount was denied to the petitioners in respect of those (2) retirement benefits i.e. gratuity and leave encashment. Therefore, the action of the respondents is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature in respec
The court upheld the government's policy decision to set a cut-off date for extending monetary benefits to retirees, affirming that such classifications are permissible under constitutional provision....
It is a well settled principle of law that statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace the statutory rules. The rules made under....
The statutory force of rules, impermissibility of creating two classes of pensioners, and the discriminatory nature of the classification were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Pension entitlement is governed by existing rules, and any revisions depend on state policy, not individual claims based on service length.
The reasonableness of the cut-off date for pension revision and the absence of unreasonableness in the respondent corporation's actions in fixing the cut-off date were the central legal points establ....
Classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
(1) Pay Revision – Whilst fixation of cut-off date for grant of benefits cannot be questioned, what is within domain of court, is to examine impact of such fixation and whether it results in discrimi....
The principle of uniformity in granting monetary benefits and prohibition of discrimination within the class.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.