HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.8847 of 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I representing all the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on record.

2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows:

“......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 by petitioners in officiating position on contract basis working against sanctioned posts as medical officers from the year 2003 to 2009 till regularization of their services in Feb, 2009 to sanction pension gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980, on their attaining age of superannuation as highly illegal, unjust, unfair arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16, 21, 39(d), 43 and 300-A of our constitution and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the past service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis from the year 2002 to 2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qualifying service from respective date of initial appointment of petitioners on contract basis on consolidated pay to sanction pension gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioners on attaining their age of superannuation as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rules 1980 with all consequential monetary benefits applying the judgment rendered in the similarly situated cases in W. P. No. 11735 of 2019, dt 06.02.2023 as per the principle laid by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case Devarakonda Srilakshmi Vs Government of A.P., (2010 2ALD 165) under Article 141 of our Constitution in the present case treating the petitioner as similar to them not as dissimilar as per the principal laid by the Honorable Supreme Court in C.A.No.6260-6261 of 2021, dt 26.10. 2021 (2021(6)ALD 285 (SC) and pass….”

3. It is specific case of the petitioners that the Respondent Department in not taking any steps to count the temporary service rendered by petitioners in officiating position on contract basis by the petitioners from the year 2003 to 2009 till regularization of their services in Feb, 2009 in the Respondent Department to sanction regular pension gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980, on their attaining age of superannuation, due to inaction of the respondent Department for more than five years in spite of petitioners’ repeated requests for the same. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

4. I t is represented by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners 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 2019 and hence, the present writ petition could be allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated

24.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.7343 2019.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 20.06.2017 passed in W.P.No.17700 of 2016 one Sri P. Dasharadham, approached the High Court for the relief as prayed for in the Writ petition and the same was implemented by the respondents therein vide Lr.No.6047/ CRP&RE/ C- 2/ 2018, dated 10.10.2018 and also communicated the same to the petitioner thereunder vide letter Rc.No.B10/ 4170/ 2015, dated 08.10.2018.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

DI SCUSSI ON AND CONLUSI ON:-

7. Subject to the exceptions contained in Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 13 of the Rules a temporary employee shall further satisfy the conditions stipulated un