IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 7512 of 2004 Between: Narayana Chary, S/o. Srinivas Chary H.No.30, L.B Nagar, S.B. H Colony, Venture -II, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 the Principal Secretary to Government Housing Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Vice-Chairman and Housing commissioner A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad. .....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 writ or more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking the service of the petitioner rendered as Work Inspector into consideration to fixing the pensionary benefit as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of Article 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOUSING The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking the service of the petitioner rendered as Work Inspector into consideration for ﬁxing the pensionary beneﬁt as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Temporary Technical Assistant generally called as Work Inspector under work charged establishment on 15-11-1973 by the Regional Housing Engineer No.1 A.P. Housing Board vide proceedings dated 21-12-1973. Thereafter from time to time his services were extended and he was working uninterruptedly in the 2nd respondent Board. It is submitted that the Government has issued G.O. Ms. No.61 Housing dated 13-12-1982, considering the service and seniority of the Work Inspectors relaxing the conditions of age and employment exchange procedure to appoint four Work Inspectors, including the petitioner, as Junior Housing Engineers. In pursuance of the said Government order, the 2nd respondent Board has issued proceedings dated 19-01-1983 to ﬁll up the vacancies of Junior Housing Engineers and four Work Inspectors, including the petitioner, were appointed as Junior Housing Engineers, redesignated as Assistant Engineer. Since the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Housing Engineer he was working till attaining the age of superannuation i.e., on 30-09- 2002. During his service the 1st respondent has issued another G.O. Ms. No.61, Housing (HDI) Department dated 08-06-2000 after due consideration of the matter modifying the earlier orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.61 dated 13-12-1982 clarifying that the appointment of four Temporary Technical Assistants as Junior Housing Engineers by direct recruitment in pursuance of G.O. Ms. No.61 dated 13-12-1982 shall be treated as promotion notionally from the date of their appointment as Junior Housing Engineers without any monetary beneﬁts. The G.O. Ms. No.61 dated 08-06-2000 was issued by the 1st respondent keeping in view of the service rendered by the four Temporary Technical Assistants mentioned in Government order including the petitioner to give the beneﬁt of their services rendered on a Temporary Technical Assistants for the purpose of future promotion, seniority and especially to compute the service for the purpose of pensionary beneﬁts without any instant monetary beneﬁts. In spite of the clear orders issued by the 1st respondent in G.O. Ms. No.61, dated 08-06-2000 the 2nd respondent has not ﬁxed the pensionary beneﬁts of the petitioner taking into consideration the period of services rendered by the petitioner as Temporary Technical Assistant. Such action of the 2nd respondent is highly arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Government orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.61 dated 08-06-2000. It is also submitted that the petitioner made representations dated 13-05-2003 and 22-06-2003 to the 2nd respondent through the Chief Engineer APHB Hyderabad requesting to include the period of service rendered by the petitioner as Temporary Technical Assistant (Work Inspector) for ﬁxing up his pensionary benefits. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent appears to have sought for clariﬁcation from the 1st respondent vide letter dated 20-09- 2003 and the Additional Secretary to Government Housing Department addressed a letter dated 30-10-2003 to the 2nd respondent to take action on the representations of the petitioner for counting the period of service rendered by him in the category of Work Inspector from 15-11-1973 to 18-01-1983 for the purpose of pensionary beneﬁts keeping in view of the orders issued by the 1st respondent in G.O. Ms. No.61, dated 08-06-2000. In spite of the position clarified by the Government by way of letter dated 30-10-2003 to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent has not taken any action in ﬁnalizing the pensionary beneﬁts of the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent denying the averments made in the writ petition by the petitioner and wherein, inter alia, submitted that there is no order by any competent authority granting the pensionary beneﬁts when the services of the petitioner was not provisionalised in the cadre of Work Inspector on account of the petitioner not completing ten years of service, but put in only 9 years 2 months of service. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary beneﬁts for the period from 15-11-1973 to 18-01-1983. Further it is submitted that the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.61 dated 08-06-2000 ordering that the appointment of four Temporary Technical Assistants as junior Housing Engineers by direct recruitment as mentioned in the G.O. Ms. No.61 H.M.A. 7 U.D. Department dated 13-12-1982 shall be treated as promotion notionally from the date of their appointment as Junior Housing Engineers without any monitory beneﬁts but not from the date of appointment as Temporary Technical Assistant (TTA) as claimed by the petitioner. It is submitted that in work charged establishment had the petitioner completes ten years of service he would have been provisionalised under the work charged establishment and the period would have been counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary beneﬁts. The petitioner was not completed ten years of service hence he will not be treated as Government servant as per G.O. Ms. No.130 Irrigation & PWD under G.O. Ms. No.168 (Irrigation Ser.V) Department dated 13-04-1994. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-09-2002 after completion of qualifying service his pensionary beneﬁts have not been ﬁnalised by taking into consideration his service with eﬀect from 15-11-1973 to 18-01-1983, which is illegal and contrary to the G.O. Ms. No.61 dated 08-06-2000. Reiterating the averments made in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 2nd respondent the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent supported the stand taken by the 2nd respondent. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Work Inspector on 15-11-1973 and he worked as such up to 18-01- 1983. Thereafter the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.61 dated 13-12-1982 for ﬁlling up the post of Junior Housing Engineers by the certain qualiﬁed Work Inspectors including the petitioner working in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board in relaxation of the Employment Exchange Procedure. Thereafter, the Government also issued another G.O. Ms. No.61 dated 08-06-2000 stating that the order issued in para (3) of the G.O. Ms. No.61, dated 13- 12-1982 that the appointment of (4) TTAs as Junior Housing Engineers including the petitioner by direct recruitment mentioned at para (1), shall be treated as promotion, notionally from the date of their appointment as Junior Housing Engineers without any monetary benefit. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed as work inspector and later on as Assistant Engineer from the date of appointment and the same was treated as promotion but without monetary benefit. When the petitioner made a representation to the Housing Board for counting of his service from 15-11-1973 to 18- 01-1983 for the purpose of pensionary beneﬁts, the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 20-09-2003 sought for the clarification from the 1st respondent and the Additional Secretary to Government Housing Department addressed a letter dated 30-10-2003 to the 2nd respondent to take action on the representation of the petitioner for counting the service rendered by him in the category of Work Inspector from 15-11-1973 to 18-01-1983 for the purpose of pensionary beneﬁts keeping in view the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.61, dated 08-06-2000 and come to Government for clarification, if required. As could be seen from the G.O. Ms. No.61 dated 08-06- 2000 wherein it is clariﬁed by the Government that the orders issued in para (3) of the G.O. Ms. No.61, dated 13-12-1982 that the appointment of (4) TTAs as Junior Housing Engineers by direct recruitment mentioned at para (1), shall be treated as promotion, notionally from the date of their appointment as Junior Housing Engineers without any monetary beneﬁt. Under the said Government order it is only promotion notionally from the date of their appointment without any monetary beneﬁts. When it is treated as without monetary beneﬁts the service that was rendered by the petitioner, with effect from 15-11-1973 to 18-01-1983 should have been taken into consideration. Further, it appears that the Government issued G.O.Ms. No.212, dated 29-03-1979 for 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. Under the G.O.Ms. No.130, dated 18- 03-1981, for the purpose of reckoning the total service period of ten years the initial appointment shall be taken into consideration excluding the break of service, which does not exceed six months and the same has been reiterated in G.O.Ms. No.168, dated 03-04-1984. Further, the Government in letter No.5914/HB.1/2003-1, dated 30-10- 2003, clariﬁed to count the service rendered in the category of Work Inspector from 15-11-1973 to 18-01-1983 for the purpose of pensionary beneﬁts. This being the position, no lawful reasons are forthcoming for denial of the claim of the petitioner for counting the service of Work Inspector to his subsequent service for claiming the pensionary benefits. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and based on the record available, non-reckoning of the past service of the petitioner as Work Inspector with effect from 15-11-1973 to 18-01-1983, for considering his case for grant of pensionary benefits appears to be not justifiable. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of as under: The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for counting the service rendered by him as Work Inspector with eﬀect from 15-11-1973 to 18-01-1983 for adding to the later service for grant of pensionary benefits etc., and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 05-08-2008 LSK