Chaduvula Narayanarao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WP No.22483 of 2015 Between:
Chaduvula Narayana Rao
...Petitioner
And:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education (UE.I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others ... Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 22.07.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may Yes/No be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the Copies of Judgment may Yes/No be marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.22483 of 2015 ORDER:
Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education (AP) and Sri P. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No.5, Higher Education (U.E.I) Department, dated 20.01.2006 to the extent it stipulates in Clause No.5 that 'the cases
which were settled need not be reopened' as illegal and arbitrary and also to declare that the order of the 1st respondent dated 28.02.2006 in rejecting the request of the petitioner to club the previous service rendered by the petitioner at 3rd respondent University from 1973 to 1982 and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent University as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the service rendered by the petitioner with other institutions viz., 3rd respondent from 1973 to 1982 as effective service for fixation of pension and other retirement benefits and re-fix the pension and pay the arrears forthwith.
3. According to the petitioner, he has completed M.A., Ph.D. in Political Science and initially he joined as Lecturer in the Department of Political Science, Punjabi University, Patiala on 14.07.1973 to February, 1982 and he served in the 3rd respondent University for 91⁄2 years and received the benefits. Subsequently, he joined as Reader in the 2nd Respondent University. According to the petitioner, he made several representations to respondents 1 and 2 to add his previous service for the present service, but the 1st respondent kept the decision pending and in the meantime, he attained superannuation on 31.12.2004 and requested the 2nd respondent to settle the P.F. keeping the right of clubbing the service as the 1st respondent has not taken any decision.
The 2nd respondent has settled his retirement benefits under the guise of Rule 2(d) of University Teachers Pension Rules, 1982 by taking the service rendered by him only from February, 1982 to December, 2004 ignoring his previous service of 91⁄2 years in the 3rd respondent by considering the said service as 'just service'. In spite of his repeated requests since 21.04.2003 for clubbing of his past service, no decision has been taken by the 1st respondent till 2006. While things stood thus, the 1st respondent Government was pleased to issue G.O.Ms.No.5 Higher Education (U.E.
20.01.2006 permitting all the Universities to club the past service rendered by the Teachers in other Universities with University service for taking full pensionary benefits with prospective effect, by including a rider to the effect that 'the cases which are already settled need not be reopened' and on account of this order, since there was no clarification with regard to clubbing of his past rendered service in the letter dated 21.07.2006, the 2nd respondent asked for clarification of letter dated 21.07.2006 and also informed that the pensionary benefits have already paid provisionally and on temporary basis, subject to the out come of the decision of the Government. Surprisingly, the 2nd respondent University on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.
5 has passed orders rejecting the request of the petitioner to club the previous service in its meeting held on 23.03.2007. According to the petitioner, even as per the correspondence of the 2nd respondent, the case of the petitioner is pending for consideration before the 1st respondent not only on the date of passing of the G.O., but also on the date of his retirement itself and hence, his case cannot be treated as already settled and as such G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 20.01.2006 squarely applies to his case. According to the petitioner, even before issuing G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 20.01.2006 by the Government, the representation of the petitioner was pending before the 1st respondent for taking decision on the aspect of clubbing his previous service with present service for fixing his pensionary benefits.
Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the issue involved in the present cases is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the single Judge of this court in WP No.9279 of 2007 dated 22.08.2013.
5. In the above said case, the learned single Judge held as
follows:
"...When the matter was pending before the Government prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.5, the case of the petitioner cannot be treated as a 'closed case' and the 1st respondent University is not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner by referring to Clause No.5 of G.O.Ms.No.5.
Thus, it is clear that the respondents have acted contra to the legitimate right of the petitioner and by rejecting the request of the petitioner for clubbing his past rendered service for the purpose of computing his retiremental benefits when the matter was pending before the Government for consideration. In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The first respondent University is directed to club the service rendered by the petitioner in the past in 3rd and 4th respondent institutions, i.e., from 01.04.1973 to 05.05.1985 with the service rendered by him in the first respondent University till his retirement for the purpose of calculating his pensionary and retiremental benefits and pay arrears with effect from his date of retirement, i.e., 31.01.2005 and pass appropriate orders within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
6. For reasons mentioned in the aforesaid order, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 22.07.2015 BSS HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
Writ Petition No.22483 of 2015 Date: 22.07.2015 BSS