IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 24079 of 1999 Between: Smt.P.Hymavathi, W/o. A.Sunder Rajan. R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER A N D A.P.Transco, Rep. by its Secretary. A.P.S.E.B., Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a) declaring the action of the respondents in no granting the terminal benefits vide Lr.No.DS(Estt)/As(Pen)/po.iiA3/2625/88 dated 07/09/99 such as gratuity commuted pro rata pension and amount of encashment of leave and other terminal benefits as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and b) declare that the petitioner is entitled for terminal benefits such as pension pro-rata pension, gratuity, leave encashment and c) to direct the respondents to release the Terminal benefits of the petitioners forthwith at the rate of 24% per annum and also further direct to recover the same from the officer who are responsible to recover the same for such a colossal loss and pass such other or further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondent : P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 24079 OF 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the A.P.Transco, the respondent, in not granting terminal benefits vide Lr.No.DS(Estt)/As(Pen)/po.iiA3/2625/88 dated 07.09.1999, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks a further declaration that she is entitled for the terminal benefits such as pension, pro-rata pension, gratuity, leave encashment and a consequential direction to release the terminal benefits due to her with interest. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Typist in the service of the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board, presently, the A.P.Transco (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Organization’) in March, 1957. Subsequently, in July, 1959, she was appointed as L.D.C. vide a regular selection in response to a recruitment notification. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as U.D.C. in October, 1961. Upon acquiring the higher qualification of ICWA, she requested the respondent Organization to promote her to the post of Accountant. While so, the A.P. Irrigation Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) issued a notification calling for applications for appointment to the post of Accountant during the year 1977. The petitioner applied for the same and the said application was allegedly routed through proper channel. The petitioner was selected for the said post during May, 1977. Thereupon, she made a request to the Organization to permit her to retain lien over the post of U.D.C. for a period of one year and she was accordingly granted the same. Thereafter, on 27.03.1978, the petitioner, upon being informed about the confirmation of her services in the Corporation, submitted a representation to the Organization to terminate her lien over the post held by her, with a request that she be paid all consequential benefits as per Rules. The Organization accepted the request of the petitioner as evidenced by B.P.M.S.No.328 dated 23.03.1979 duly terminating her lien and stating that the terminal benefits would be paid to her in due course. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations with regard to payment of the benefits due to her, but the Organization rejected her claim for terminal benefits vide Memo dated 27.08.1983 on the ground that her appointment in the Corporation was not in public interest as required under B.P.M.S.No.312 dated 21.03.1978. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16497 of 1988 before this Court seeking a direction to the Organization to grant her terminal benefits such as gratuity, commuted pro-rata pension, encashment of earned leave, etc. A learned Judge of this Court, by order dated 06.07.1999, while holding to the effect that the petitioner was entitled to Provident Fund, gratuity and leave encashment benefits, directed the Organization to consider her entitlement to pension as per the rule position within a time frame and disposed of the writ petition. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judge observed in the abovesaid order that the petitioner had applied for the post of Accountant in the Corporation directly as well as through the office of the Organization. This order has admittedly become final. Pursuant to the said order, it appears that the respondent Organization undertook an enquiry into the matter afresh and passed the impugned order vide Lr.No.DS(Estt)/As(Pen)/po.iiA3/2625/88 dated 07.09.1999, once again rejecting the claim of the petitioner. A reading of the said order shows that the Organization cited the following reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s request : It was stated that the petitioner, having sought to retain her lien on the post held by her in the Organization, failed to remit the leave salary and pension contribution as was required. It was reiterated that her selection and appointment in the Corporation was not in public interest. It was also stated that the petitioner had resigned from the post of U.D.C. in the Organization with effect from 11.05.1977 and accordingly, her right to terminal benefits would also cease. The reliance sought to be placed by the petitioner upon G.O.Ms.No.229 dated 10.08.1983 was contested by stating that the amendment to the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 was only prospective in nature and the petitioner could not seek the benefit thereof. In summation, it was stated that the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.6,454/- towards G.P.F. and Rs.174/- towards family benefit fund which were due to her as per Rules and that, as a resigned employee of the Organization, she was not entitled for pension, gratuity, commutation of pension and leave encashment, etc. The counter affidavit filed by the Organization echoes the stand taken by the Organization in its letter dated 07.09.1999. Heard Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, the learned counsel for the Organization. The facts narrated above clearly indicate that the subject issue was considered by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.16497/1988 and that the said adjudication became final. The declaration made in the said order with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to the provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment benefits cannot therefore be assailed or controverted by the Organization at this stage, having failed to appeal against the said order. The exercise, directed to be undertaken, by this Court in the earlier round of litigation was only with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to pension in accordance with the rule position. However, it appears that the Organization undertook an enquiry afresh into issues which were already covered by the adjudication effected in the earlier case. It was therefore improper and uncalled for on the part of the respondent Organization to enquire afresh into the claim of the petitioner for the P.F., gratuity and leave encashment benefits. The order dated 07.09.1999 therefore suffers on this preliminary count and cannot be sustained. Be that as it may, even on merits it is found that the grounds sought to be raised by the Organization for rejecting the claim of the petitioner do not hold water. The learned counsel appearing for the Organization admits fairly that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner did not route her application, while seeking appointment in the Corporation, through proper channel. On the other hand, the observation made by this Court in W.P.No.16497/1988 and the fact that the respondent Organization itself granted permission to the petitioner to retain lien on her post clearly negative the possibility that the petitioner did not route her application through the proper channel. The second ground raised by the Organization is that the appointment of the petitioner in the Corporation did not involve public interest. This ground is equally untenable, in view of the fact that the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.228 (Finance) dated 25.11.1967 with regard to grant of retirement benefits to government servants on their transfer to Government Companies or Corporations, was extended to those, who had been selected by State Government Companies / Corporations on the basis of their own applications, vide G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 05.05.1976. By way of B.P.M.S.No.312 dated 21.03.1978, the Organization adopted G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 05.05.1976 and made it applicable to its employees who were permanently transferred or absorbed in Undertakings of the Central or State Government. It is no doubt true that in the said G.O. the term ‘public interest’ has been used, but the terminology in G.O.Ms.No.183, stating to the effect that those government employees who had been selected in Government Companies / Corporations on the basis of their own applications were also given the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.228 dated 25.11.1967, clearly shows that petitioner’s case falls squarely within the arena covered by G.O.Ms.No.183 dated 05.05.1976. It is therefore not open to the respondent Organization to deny her the benefits of 20 years of long service, by stating that her appointment in the Corporation did not involve public interest. Another ground of rejection was that as the petitioner was a ‘resigned employee’ of the Organization, she was not entitled to terminal benefits. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had never submitted her resignation to the post and could not therefore be treated as a ‘resigned employee’. It is relevant to note that in the counter, the respondent Organization itself referred to its office memo dated 30.12.1978 addressed to the petitioner, wherein she was requested to tender her resignation with effect from 11.05.1977. There is no material on record to show that in pursuance to such request, the petitioner did, in fact, submit her resignation. In view of the aforesaid facts, the stand taken by the respondent Organization, denying the petitioner the terminal benefits in respect of her service stretching over 20 years, cannot be accepted, be it on technicalities or on merits. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to terminal benefits such as provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment as declared by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Her claim for pension shall however be subject to relevant rules, which necessarily has to be examined expeditiously by the respondent Organization in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 24th MARCH, 2009 SUR