HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 9150 OF 2005 . DATED 19th September, 2005 BETWEEN David Chinnappa and ors …Petitioners And The Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Saidabad, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 9150 of 2005 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not paying the pension and releasing pensionary benefits to the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners were stated to have been appointed in the fourth respondent-High Scchool in different posts on different dates. It is stated that the fourth respondent-school is one of the 18 schools which opted to go out of grant-in-aid during the year 1964. It is further stated that the fourth respondent- high school is a recognized institution and its recognition is being renewed from time to time. It is further stated that the Government issued two Memos on 3.12.1979 and 22.6.1992 reiterating that pension has to be paid to the teachers working in the schools which opted to go out of grant-in-aid. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5615 of 1992 dated 26.09.2000. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 did not dispute the same. By order dated 26.09.2000, this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No. 5615 of 1992, considered the similar issue and held as follows: “…….It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as teacher on 31.5.1963 by the third respondent-school and the petitioner joined as such in the said school. After his retirement, when he claimed pensionary and provident fund benefits, his claim was rejected on the ground that during the period when he was appointed as teacher, the school was out of grant-in-aid and therefore he is not entitled for payment of pension, gratuity and provident fund benefits. Whether the petitiioner is entitled to receive pension and provident fund, the Government issued two memos dated 3.12.1979 and 22.6.1992 clarifying the position. But, whoever, the clarification issued by the Government was not accepted by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1043 of 1992 depriving the benefits who were appointed on 1.4.1963 and 1.4.1980 as arbitrary and unconstitutional and when the respondent-school opted to go out of grant-in- aid, one of the conditions put forth by the Government is tht they have to contribute their part of percentage in respect of pension and provident fund of the teachers working in the institution. In those circumstances, the learned single judge interfered in the matter and held that the action of the respondent therein in denying the right of the teacher to receive pension and provident fund is arbitrary and unconstitutional and offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Following the decision of the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 1043 of 1992 dated 7.8.1995, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to receive the pensionary benefits and provident fund……” In as much as the petitioners in this Writ Petition stand on the same footing, following the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.5615 of 1992, dated 26.09.2000, this Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 19th September, 2011. Msnro