SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 54237

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J
Dr.Balla Indira Devi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No.6958 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ch. Ganesh
For the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II

Temporary or contract-based service rendered under the authority of the government, even if prior to formal regularization, must be counted as qualifying service for the computation of pension and other retirement benefits.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 - Rules 13 and 14 - Temporary service - Counting as qualifying service - Petitioner sought counting of contract service from 2002 to 2006 for pensionary benefits - Court held that temporary service qualifies for pension if rendered under Government authority - Precedents mandate that past ad-hoc service must be reckoned.

Facts of the case:
Petitioner worked on a contract basis from 09.01.2002 to 26.04.2006 and retired on 30.04.2018. The grievance arose from the respondents' failure to count the prior contract-based service towards qualifying service for pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits under the 1980 Rules, despite long-standing precedent regarding such eligibility.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the respondents were obliged to include the contract service period as qualifying service for pension purposes, citing settled law that temporary service followed by regularization constitutes qualifying service for retirees.

Issues: Whether the contract-based service rendered by the petitioner prior to regularization is to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits under the relevant pension rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Temporary service rendered under government authority is eligible for counting as qualifying service for pension; state authorities cannot deny pensionary benefits for long-service employees by labeling their tenure as temporary or ad-hoc.

Result: Writ Petition allowed, with directions to process pension proposals within three weeks.

Table of Content
1. temporary service rendered qualifies for pension under 1980 rules. (Para 7)

ORDER:

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

The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:

“….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 09.01.2002 to 26.04.2006 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 30.04.2018 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 09.01.2002 to 26.04.2006 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 Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devarakonda Srilakshmi Vs Government of A.P., (2010 2ALD 165) under Article 141 of the Constitution in the present case treating the petitioner as similar to them not as dissimilar as per the principle laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.6260-6251 of 2021, dt. 26.10.2021, (2021 (6) ALD 285 (SC) and pass...”

The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present w rit petition is as under:

The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents to count the past service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis from the year 09.01.2002 to 26.04.2006 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 Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devarakonda Srilakshmi Vs Government of A.P., (2010 2ALD 165) under Article 141 of the Constitution in the present case treating the petitioner as similar to them not as dissimilar as per the principle laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.6260-6251 of 2021, dt. 26.10.2021, (2021 (6) ALD 285 (SC).

It is represented by the 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 of 2019 and therefore the petitioner herein are entitled for the same relief as extended to the petitioners in W.P. No.7343 of 2019.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top