IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13852 of 1997 Between: P.Jagannadha Rao, S/o.Late Sunder Rao, Hindu, Retired at D.No.9-2-27/1, Residing at D.No.9-2-27/1, Pithapuram VUDA Colony, Maddilapalem Junction, Visakhapatnam-530 003. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Accountant General (A&E) Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad-463. 2 The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, (Waltair Circle) Irrigation Circle, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ in the nature of MANDAMUS or any other writ order or direction, by declaring that the action of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in not considering the service of the Petitioner with these Respondents, for the relevant periods, as a combined services for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits, as unjust, contrary to law, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in consequence thereof direct Respondents 2 & 3 to send all the necessary pension papers of the petitioner to the Office of Respondent No.1 forthwith and further direct Respondent No.1 to pay the pensionary benefits, which the Petitioner is entitled to, from the date of his retirement, in the interest of justice and to pass any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.RAVINDER The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTSICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13852 of 1997 ORDER: This case best illustrates the apathy and indifference of the officials in authority to the plight of those who have retired from service and for whom, payment of the meager additional pensionary benefits which they seek, will make a huge difference in their efforts to make both ends meet. An employee of the Port Trust has been running from pillar to post for the past three decades seeking inclusion of the service rendered by him earlier under the State Government, for computation of his pensionary benefits in the 2nd respondent, for payment of proportionate pension by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent and for a direction to the 1st respondent to pay him pension. Though the claim of inclusion of service is for the period from the years 1958 to 1967 and though the writ petition was filed more than a decade ago, in the year 1997, none of the respondents have chosen even to file their counter-affidavits in reply to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The indifference of the respondents is further highlighted by the absence of their Counsel at the time of hearing, though the writ petition has suffered repeated adjournments. Despite the numerous adjournments granted to enable counsel to appear, and though the writ petition is listed under the caption “for judgment”, even today none of the counsel appearing for the respondents are present in Court, leaving this Court with little choice but to accept the averments, in the affidavit and the documents filed therewith, as true. Facts, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk on a temporary basis in the Public Works Department, (presently the Irrigation Department), in the Government of Andhra Pradesh from 26.12.1958 to 31.03.1967. He was selected by the Service Commission and allotted to the Revenue Department, but was taken in the Public Works Department itself. The petitioner resigned from the services of the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 31.03.1967 and joined as a Typist in the Traffic Department of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust on 01.04.1967. He was subsequently appointed as a Clerk in the Accounts Department of the Port Trust on 24.12.1969. It is the petitioner’s case, that while he was working as a permanent Clerk under the control of the 3rd respondent, he had applied for the post of Typist under the 2nd respondent through proper channel, that on his selection and on receipt of posting orders from the 2nd respondent, he had got himself relieved from the services of the 3rd respondent on 31.03.1967 and had joined as a Typist in the Traffic Department of the 2nd respondent the very next day on 01.04.1967 and, as a result, there was no break in service in between. The petitioner retired from service on 28.02.1995 under the voluntary retirement scheme. Petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Surface Transport, that he submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent on 22.07.1993 to consider his past service for the purpose of computation of pension and retirement benefits in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust in terms of the Memo dated 29.08.1984 and the that the particulars of the service rendered by him, with the State Government from 26.12.1958 to 31.03.1967, were available with the 3rd respondent. On the basis of his representation, the Accounts Department of the 2nd respondent is said to have addressed a letter dated 20.11.1993 to the 3rd respondent to intimate their acceptance to pay proportionate pension for the period of service rendered by the petitioner in their organization and, since this letter did not elicit any reply, a letter is said to have been addressed on 04.02.1997 which also did not result in any reply being given thereto. Petitioner would rely on several Office Memorandums of the Government of India and on the orders of the State Government, in G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 19.05.1987 in support of his contention that the service rendered by him in the State Government should, for the purposes of computation of pension, be clubbed with the service rendered by him in Central Government autonomous bodies where a pension scheme is in existence. Petitioner would submit that a pension scheme is in operation in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, that in G.O.Ms.No.135 dated 19.05.1987 the State Government had ordered that the pension liability on account of retirement benefits, at prorata rates, in respect of those employees shall be borne by the Government in accordance with the orders contained in the Office Memorandum dated 08.04.1976 and 29.08.1984, that in so far as State Government employees were concerned even temporary services was to be reckoned for the purpose of pension. It is thus clear that the service of the petitioner, even if it be on a temporary basis in the Public Works Department/Irrigation Department of the Government of Andrha Pradesh from 1958 to 1967, is required to be taken into consideration, along with the services rendered by him in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, for the purpose of computation of his pensionary benefits. As is evident from the letters addressed by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust to the State Government, it is only if prorata pension is paid to it by the State Government can the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, in turn, take the period of service rendered under the State Government into consideration in proper fixation of the petitioner’s pension and for payment of pensionary benefits. While none of the respondents have filed their counter- affidavit, it is amply clear from the documents filed along with the writ petition that the Visakhapatnam Port Trust has at least taken the efforts to address a letter to the State Government asking them to intimate their acceptance to pay the proportionate pension liability. The apathy and indifference exhibited by the concerned officials in the State Government is, to say the least, a matter of regret. Driving a hapless citizen from pillar to post in the evening of his life, for payment of certain benefits which he is entitled to, is without any justification whatsoever. There shall be a direction, therefore, to the 3rd respondent to compute the service rendered by the petitioner in the State Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, thereafter calculate the prorata pension, intimate the said particulars and forward the prorata pension payable by the State Government to the 2nd respondent within a further period of one month, and the 2nd respondent shall, within one month from the date of receipt of the particulars and the amount from the 3rd respondent, compute the pension of the petitioner and pay him his pensionary benefits. The Writ Petition is allowed with exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), which the 3rd respondent shall pay to the petitioner herein within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 11.07.2008 GS