THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25258 of 2006

ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings dt.13.03.2006 in No.P2/I/C-290/SP-606/2006- 02/1121 on the file of the third respondent as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith release the terminal benefits of the petitioner with interest.

2. Heard Sri K. Ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined in service as a Part-time Electrician on 21.09.1981 on consolidated pay of Rs.250/- per month. After completion of five years of service, his services were converted as full-time contingent employee. Hence, he was paid minimum time scale. Thereafter, his services were converted into regular post in the Last Grade Service. The above orders were issued by the third respondent vide proceedings No. 766/PCIII-1/94, dated 12.09.1995.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had completed 21 years of qualifying service and applied for voluntary retirement through application, dated 01.07.2005, provided his case fulfills the conditions laid down in Rule 43 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and requested the authorities to accord necessary permission for his voluntary retirement.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 2^nd respondent, by Order, dated 21.07.2005, accorded permission for petitioner’s voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01.10.2005 by specifically stating that the petitioner had completed qualifying service of 21 years and 8 months. Thereafter, the first respondent, through his letter, dated 31.12.2005, forwarded the pension papers to the third respondent for release of pensionary benefits. But, the third respondent, through his letter, dated 13.03.2006, returned the pension proposal stating that as per letter, dated 28.01.1992 of Deputy Secretary to Government, Education (S.S.) Department, vide G.O.Ms.No.156 Fin. & Plg. (FW PenI) Department, dated 29.04.1983 is not applicable to the teaching & non-teaching staff of Aided Schools & Colleges. Hence, the contingent service of the petitioner as class-IV employee, is not considered for qualifying service. As such, the petitioner was not eligible for voluntary retirement on the ground that he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner while applying for voluntary retirement, specifically requested the authorities that if his case fulfills the conditions laid down in Rule 43 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, then only permit him to take voluntary retirement, but without discussing any with regard to the above said Rule, the authorities have permitted him to take voluntary retirement.

7. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner, dated 01.07.2005, it is clearly mentioned that if his case fulfills the conditions laid down in Rule 43 of A.P. Revised Pension Rule 1980, then only he may be accorded permission for voluntary retirement. Whereas, a perusal of the third respondent’s letter, dated 13.03.2006 shows that there is no discussion with regard to Rule 43 of A.P. Revised Pension Rule 1980 as prayed by the petitioner. In the said circumstances, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, direct the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent authorities within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being made by the petitioner, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, if he is otherwise eligible for voluntary retirement, within a period of eight (08) weeks therefrom.

8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no