IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1536 of 2008 Between: A.P. Housing Board, rep., by its Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Sri Narayana Chary and another. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :1536 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Challenging the order, dated 05.08.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.7512 of 2004, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the Housing Board. The appellant-Housing Board is the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent herein is the writ petitioner in the above writ petition. Originally, the above writ petition was filed seeking to declare the action of the Housing Board in not taking the service rendered by the writ petitioner as Work Inspector into consideration for fixing the pensionary benefits, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the writ petitioner in brief is as follows: He was appointed as Work Inspector on 15.11.1973 and he worked as such upto 18.1.1983. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 13.12.1982 for filling up the post of Junior Housing Engineers, redesignated as Assistant Engineers, by certain qualified Work Inspectors including the writ petitioner, and in pursuance of the said G.O., he was appointed as Assistant Engineer and G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 8.6.2000 clarifies that the said appointment shall be treated as promotion, but without monetary benefit. When the petitioner made a representation to the Board for counting his service from 15.11.1973 to 18.1.1983 for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the Housing Board sought for clarification from the Government of A.P., and the Additional Secretary to Government Housing Department addressed a letter to the Housing Board to take action on the representation of the petitioner for counting his service in the category of Work Inspector for the purpose of pensionary benefits keeping in view the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 8.6.2000. Though the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.2002 after completion of qualifying service, his pensionary benefits have not been finalized by taking into consideration his service for the period of 15.11.1973 to 18.1.1983. The learned single Judge having observed that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 29.3.1979 to the effect that all the work charged employees, who have completed ten years of service, be made eligible to all the benefits like leave, pension etc., on par with the Government employees, and that G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 18.3.1981 makes it clear that for the purpose of reckoning the total service of ten years, the initial appointment shall be taken into consideration excluding the break of service, which does not exceed six months and that the Government in its letter No.5914/HB.1/2003-1, dated 30.10.2003, further clarified to count the service rendered in the category of Work Inspector from 15.11.1973 to 18.1.1983 for the purpose of pensionary benefits and, therefore, non-reckoning of the past service of the petitioner as Work Inspector with effect from 15.11.1973 to 18.1.1983, for considering his case for grant of pensionary benefits appears to be unjustifiable, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the writ petitioner for counting the service rendered by him as Work Inspector with effect from 15.11.1973 to 18.1.1983 for adding to the later service for grant of pensionary benefits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the Housing-Board. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the appellant-Housing Board that the service of the writ petitioner was not provincialised in the cadre of Work Inspector as he had not completed 10 years of service and therefore, he is not entitled to pensionary benefits for the period in question whereas it is the contention of the writ petitioner that there is no bifurcation of two posts as such under the revised rules and that from the date of initial appointment, one has to complete 10 years of service to make himself to be entitled to pension. There is no material on record to show that the posts have been bifurcated independently for the purpose of calculation of 10 years to make a person to be entitled to receive pension. Therefore, we hold that there is some force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-1st respondent. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed on 15.11.1973 as Work Inspector and he retired on 30.9.2002 as Assistant Engineer and thus in total, he rendered service nearly for a period of about 29 years. In this view of the matter and in view of the well considered findings of the learned single Judge and in the absence of any material as to bifurcation of the posts, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of the learned single does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _____________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Dated: 21st December, 2009 nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :1536 of 2008 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) 21st December , 2009