IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO. 20712 of 2007 Between: 1 Y. Anjaneyulu, S/o. Late Sri Y. Sachidanandam, R/o. Motinagar, Hyderabad. 2 N. Venkat Naidu, S/o. N. Narayanappa, JNTU, Hyderabad, R/o. Motinagar, Hyderabad. 3 A.K. Asthana, S/o. A.C. Asthana, JNTU, Hyderabad, Civil Engineering, JNTU, Hyderabad, R/o. Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. 4 R.V. Kolhatkar, s/o V.P. Kolhatkar, JNTU, Hyderabad, R/o. Khairabad, Hyderabad. 5 Promod Shinde, S/o. S.b. Shinde, R/o. Masabtank, Hyderabad, retired as Professor in Architecture, JNTU, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Rep by its Registrar, ....RESPONDENTS 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 any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" i) Compelling the respondents to fix our and pensionary benefits ona actual pay I had drawn on attaining the age of 60 years, counting length of service on the rules issued by the Government and the University, and pay all the arrears up to date with all the consequential reliefs, and ii) and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. M.SHALINI Counsel for the Respondents.: The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by a Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5968 of 1990, dated 22-7-2002, which was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.1926 of 2002, dated 20-3-2003. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, has stated that the issue in this Writ Petition is not settled and it is slightly different. Learned counsel has urged that G.O.Ms.Nos.276 and 277, Education Department, dated 2-12-1993 and the Pension Rules of the respondent-University, which clearly state that no Teacher is entitled to count any service rendered after having attained the age of 58 years or any emoluments received thereafter for the purpose of pension, were not taken into consideration by this Court earlier. In fact, being aggrieved by an Order dated 7-11-2003 made in a similar matter i.e. Writ Petition No.18808 of 2003, the University carried the matter in appeal being W.A.No.1951 of 2004 raising the same question, but the Division Bench did not agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the University and dismissed the appeal. In the circumstances, I am of the view that no fresh ground is raised to disagree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue that arises for consideration is squarely covered by a Judgment of this Court in W.P. No.5968 of 1990, dated 22-7-2002, which was confirmed by a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1926 of 2002, dated 20-3-2003 as also the Judgment in W.P.No[hc1][hc2].18808 of 2003, which was confirmed in W.A.No.1951 of 2004 on 24-11-2004. Following the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to compute the pension of the petitioners as per the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules,1980, taking into consideration the two years of service rendered by them beyond the age of 58 years and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and communicate the same to the petitioners. No order as to costs. 29-2-2008 prk [hc1] [hc2]