HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.8567 of 2023

ORDER:

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

2. The petitioner 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 on contract basis by the petitioner from the year 18.12.2001 to 28.04.2006 in the Respondent Department to sanction regular pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980, on retiring from service on 30.06.2019 due to indecision of respondent Department from 16 long years as highly illegal, unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the past service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis from the year 18.12.2001 to 28.04.2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qualifying service to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rules 1980, with arrears along with interest from the date of retirement of petitioner w.e.f. 30.04.2018 on attaining age of superannuation with all consequential monetary benefits by awarding exorbitant costs against respondents for their indecision for 16 long years in forcing the petitioners to approach this Honble Court for justice to apply the judgments rendered in the similarly situated cases in W. P. No. 11735 of 2019 dt 06. 02. 2023 and the principle laid by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of 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 Hon’ble 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 petitioner that the Respondent Department in not taking any steps to count the temporary service rendered on contract basis by the petitioner from the year 18.12.2001 to 28.04.2006 in the Respondent Department to sanction regular pension gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980 on retiring from service on 30.06.2019 due to inaction of the respondent Department for more than a decade in spite of petitioner’s repeated requests for the same. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

4. I t is represented by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner.

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 under Rule 14 of the