Pensionary benefits are not an inherent right but are governed by specific statutes or employment schemes; employees who voluntarily accept terms of absorption, which include substitute social security benefits like EPF and Gratuity in lieu of pension, are precluded from claiming pension benefits retrospectively.

ORDER:

Present writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of respondents in granting pensionary benefits to the petitioners for the service rendered with 3rd respondent – Devasthanam to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.680, Revenue (Endts.III) Department, dated 15.07.1987 and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits.

2. (a) Petitioners stated to have been initially joined in the transport wing maintained by 3rd respondent Devasthanam as drivers, conductors, mechanics, attenders etc. It is stated that they were extended revised pay scales, granting HRA and other increments. Initially, the employees of 3rd respondent Devasthanam were not covered by pensionary benefits. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.201, dated 12.02.1982, the Government has issued orders, thereby, the employees working in eight temples, including 3rd respondent temple were directed to be extended the pay scales, HRA, TA, LTC, Family Planning Incentives, Surrender Leave, Medical Reimbursement, Promotions and Extension of Fundamental Rules as applicable to the Government employees and to that extent, Rules be framed under Section 31(3) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 .

(b) Subsequently, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.680, Revenue (Endts.III) Department, dated 15.07.1987, to even extend the benefit of revised pension Rules, 1980, with effect from the year 1982 to the employees of various Devasthanams, also included the 3rd respondent Devasthanam. That being so, the transport wing of 3rd respondent Devasthanam was proposed to be merged with 4th respondent Corporation as it was felt that the Devasthanam was not in a position to handle the operations any further and therefore, vide G.O.Ms.No.977, dated 30.09.1989, the Government had ordered for transfer of the transport wing of the 3rd respondent Devasthanam to the 4th respondent Corporation w.e.f. 01.10.1989.

(c) All the petitioners eventually stated to have been transferred and got absorbed in the services of 4th respondent Corporation. Petitioners have joined the services of 4th respondent Corporation and majority of them have attained age of superannuation, and at that juncture, representation dated 13.06.2006 was made to the Secretary, Endowments Department, ventilating the grievance that they were deprived of pensionary benefits in lieu of their services being absorbed in 4th respondent Corporation and therefore, requested for grant of pension for the services rendered in 3rd respondent Devasthanam. As there was no response to the said representation, petitioners chose to file present writ petition.

3. (a) Initially, the writ petition was preferred against respondents 1 to 3, however, when the 3rd respondent Devasthanam has taken objection regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, 4th respondent Corporation was sought to be impleaded vide I.A. No.1 of 2024, which eventually came to be ordered on 19.06.2024. Both respondents 3 and 4 have filed counters opposing the prayer in the writ petition.

(b) In sum and substance, the stand of respondents has been that the transfer of petitioners was in pursuance to a tripartite arrangement between 3rd respondent and 4th respondent and the employees working in the transport department who were sought to be transferred and in pursuance to Minutes dated 29.05.1989, the terms and conditions of arrangement were agreed to, therefore, any claim m