THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. No. 4643 of 2010 24-10-2011 Between: The Commissioner of Sericulture, Hyderabad. …….Petitioner and B.K.Abdul Razak and another ………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. No. 4643 of 2010 ORDER: (Per: Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This writ petition by the respondents before the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), is directed against the order of the learned Single Member, dated 18-12-2009 in O.A.No.4409 of 2006 directing the writ petitioners to count the service rendered by the 1st respondent-applicant as contingent employee for the purposes of pensionary benefits and to revise his pension, within the period specified. 2. The 1st respondent retired as a Panchayat Secretary and approached the Tribunal for a direction to the writ petitioners to count the service rendered by him as Farm Worker and Skilled Worker for the purpose of pension. The respondent-applicant was initially appointed as Farm Worker on 28-02-1977 and converted subsequently to a scale worker on 17-10-1984; thereafter appointed as Operative in 1985; and was further promoted as Farm Foreman in 1991. Since then he was working in the said category. He retired on 31-06-2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. Claiming to have put in 21 years of service since 1977 (the date of his first appointment as Farm Worker) and despite putting 8 years service in that category, that period of service was not counted and therefore, quantum of pension he was eligible to has been protanto restricted, was his complaint before the Tribunal. 3. The respondent-applicant relied on the instructions issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.156, Finance and Planning Department, dated 29-04-1983, which ordain that in view of hardship occasioned to contingent employees or low paid employees when the benefit of their past service was not reckoned for the purpose of pension, and as a social security measure; the State as a policy measure and after “careful consideration” decided to reckon the pre- absorption service of full-time contingent employee converted into Last Grade Post for the purpose of pension in combination with subsequent government service in relaxation of Article 36 of the C.S.R’s. 4. On the basis of these Government Orders, after considering the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the Joint Director, Sericulture, Hyderabad, the learned Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to reckon his tenure as a contingent employee for the purpose of his pension. 5. This Court discerns no error in the application of law and in the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since the purpose of issuing G.O.Ms.No.156, dated 29-04-1993, in exercise of the executive power of the State was to reckon the past service of the low paid employees as a social security measure and to avoid hardship to these low paid employees working in the contingent category, we consider the extension of the benefit of the Government Orders to the petitioner by the learned Tribunal consistent with the values of equality enjoined by Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. We therefore see no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM _________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 24-10-2011 kvr