2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 28626

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
P. Thimmappa, – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
WP/30508/2021

An employee who is not absorbed by the department and whose services were never terminated in the parent department is not entitled for pension.

Headnote:

PENSION - REVISED PENSION RULES, 1980 - PENSIONARY BENEFITS - DEPUTATION - ABSORPTION - SERVICES NOT ABSORBED BY THE DEPARTMENT - SERVICES NEVER TERMINATED IN THE PARENT DEPARTMENT - NOT ENTITLED FOR PENSION - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Helper in Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited, Anantapur. Later, his services were regularized and probation was declared in the cadre of Helper from 31.12.1991. The petitioner was allotted to the Office of the Executive Engineer (PR), Dharmavaram Division at Anantapur District to work on deputation basis as Watchman and later transferred to Tadipatri No.II. Since then, the petitioner is working as Watchman under Last Grade Service in Panchayat Raj Department. The petitioner was appointed to Special Grade Post and also as Special Adhoc Promotion Post with time scale on completion of 8 years and 12 years respectively. Therefore, the petitioner is being treated as a Last Grade Servant in Panchayat Raj Department. The petitioner was retired from service w.e.f., 31.05.2016 on attaining age of superannuation of 58 years. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16684 of 2016 before the Hon’ble composite High Court, wherein the composite High Court granted an interim order dated 26.05.2016 directing the respondents to continue in service till the age of superannuation of 60 years. The petitioner was posted as Office Subordinate in the office of Deputy Director Ground Water Department, Anantapur in the existing vacancy and had been worked till the age of superannuation. Thereafter, the respondent issued orders sanctioning monthly pension of Rs.16,762/-. More so, an amount of Rs.6,86,464/- was sanctioned towards towards Death-cum-Retirement gratuity and an amount of Rs.6,59,191/- was sanctioned towards commutation of pension. The respondent issued proceedings requesting the District Treasury Officer to stop the pensionary benefits of the petitioner without any prior notice to the petitioner on the ground that the pensionary benefits were only can be granted to the Government employees. Thereafter, the pension proposals of the petitioner were sent to the respondent along with the service register. Thus, the respondent issued another proceedings requesting the petitioner to recover the pensionary benefits paid to the petitioner and credit the same to the Government funds on the ground that the pensionary benefits of the petitioner are irregular and are in deviation of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The petitioner filed W.P.No.10284 of 2019 before the Hon’ble high Court questioning the stoppage of pensionary and other benefits. Wherein this Court was pleased to disposed of the writ petition on 15.02.2021 by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 16.07.2019 and 18.07.2019 and it is left open to the petitioner to raise any objections treating that the said proceedings as show cause notice and to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner submitted his explanation within time as directed. However, the respondent without considering Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, and F.R.14-A rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to declare that the petitioner is entitled for payment of pension uninterruptedly and pass such other order.

Finding of the Court:

The petitioner failed to prove that his services were absorbed by the Panchayat Raj department or by the respondent. Moreover, the Rules under Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules were not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for pension being the employee of the Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited, Anantapur.

Ratio Decidendi: The services of the petitioner were never absorbed by the Panchayat Raj department or by the respondent. Moreover, the Rules under Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules were not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for pension being the employee of the Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited, Anantapur.

Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.