IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A.NOs. 1414, 1493 TO 1498, & 1500 OF 2001, WP Nos. 18537 OF 1995 & 24283 OF 1998 WRIT APPEAL NO : 1414 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 6859 OF 1995 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION WRIT APPEAL NO : 1493 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 18535 OF 1995 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1494 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 30199 OF 1995 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1495 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 20123 OF 1994 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION WRIT APPEAL NO : 1496 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 6859 OF 1995 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1497 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 6859 OF 1995 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1498 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 26659 OF 1995 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1500 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 35676 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18537 of 1995 Between: Prof. A.rajeswara sarma, S/o A.Rajalingayya, 80,SRT, Municipal Colony, malakpet, Hydrabad-500036. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep by its Secretary, Education department (Higher Education), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Osmania University, rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad. .....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 an appropriate writ or direction or order, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents herein to extend the beneﬁt of A.P.Revised Pension Rules 1961 as amended/revised from time to time to the petitioners herein without any reference to the date of the superannuation and also declare the classiﬁcation of University teachers recruited prior to 1.4.1953 and teachers who were appointed on or after 1.4.1953 and retired on or before 31.3.1992 and teachers who entered into service on or after 1.4.1992 and who retire/retired on or after 1.40.1992 as members of diﬀerent classes, as violative of article 14 to 16 of the constitution of India and further direct the respondents to pay all arrears of pension and all other consequential beneﬁts such as communication, family pension and gratuity etc., with interest at the rate of 18% pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.NAVEEN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE(S.C. FOR O.U.) WRIT PETITION NO : 24283 of 1998 Between: P.S.Tamraparni, S/o. T.Sethuram 2-1-7 Saraswathi Colony, Uppal , Hyderabad 500 039. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep.by its Secretary, EducationDepartment (Higher Education) Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Osmania University Rep.by its Registrar, Administrative Building Hyderabad 500 007. .....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, Order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents herein to extend the beneﬁt of A.P. Revised Pension Rules 1961 as amended /revise from time to time to the petitioner herein without any reference to the date of superannuation and also declare the classiﬁcation of University teachers recruited prior to 1-4-1953 and teachers who ware appointed on or after 1-4-1953 and retired on or before 31-3-1992 and teachers who retired/retired on or after 1-4-92 as members of diﬀerent classes, is violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India and further direct the Respondents to pay all arrears of pension and all other consequential beneﬁts such as commutation ,family pension and gratuity etc. with interest at the rate of 18% and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MILIND G GOKHALE Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A.NOs. 1414, 1493 TO 1498, & 1500 OF 2001 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Smt. T. Meena Kumari, J) All these cases are disposed of by this common judgment as they relate common issue. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These writ appeals are ﬁled against the common order dated 14.7.2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos. 20123, 6859, 18535, 26659, 26660, 30199 of 1995, 9221 of 1996 and 35676 of 1998 whereby the writ petitions were allowed. The writ petitioners are the retired Readers and Professors of Osmania University, who joined in service after 1.4.1953 and retired in between 1986 and 1992. It is stated that they were governed by A.P. Liberalized Pension Rules, 1961 and they were entitled for the pension calculated at 33/80 on average emoluments of 10 months ending with the month of retirement subject to maximum of Rs.1,000/-, thus a ceiling in pension was ﬁxed. For enhancement of the pension, the Government issued GO Ms. No. 241, Education (UE.2) Department, dated 30.6.1992 permitting all the Universities under the control of Education department to frame Rules for providing more liberalized provision for ﬁxed the pensionery beneﬁts as indicated in the said GO. The said GO required the Universities to frame Rules in two parts namely Part-A and Part-B. Accordingly the Universities framed the draft Rules and the Government in GO Ms.No. 276 dated 2.12.1993 approved the Pension Rules to the teaching staﬀ of the Universities. The Government also issued GO Ms. No. 277, dated 2.12.1993 stipulating that the Rules shall not be applicable to those who retired on or before 31.3.1992. However, it was proposed to give them the beneﬁt of the Rules to such pensioners/family pensioners in so far as revision of pension and family pension are concerned. According to the writ petitioners, they were denied of the beneﬁts of new Rules, whereas the teachers of the Osmania University who were appointed prior to 1.4.1953 were getting the pension calculated on the basis of 60 years with ratio of 33/66. The teachers recruited along with the petitioners after 1.4.1953 and who retired after 1.4.1992 got the beneﬁt of the new Rules. The learned single Judge observed that the beneﬁt of new Rules was not only given to all the teachers who were in service, but it was also extended to the pensioners living as on 1.4.1992. The new Rules were directed to be made eﬀective from 1.4.1992. The learned single Judge also observed that the GO itself covered the teachers as homogeneous clause. However, in G.O.Ms.No. 277, dated 2.12.1993 the Government clariﬁed that the Rules are applicable only to those who retired on or after 31.3.1992 and under the said Rules two options viz., Part A and Part B were given to be exercised by the teachers. If teaching staff opts for Part- A of the new Rules, the qualifying service will be reckoned only up to the age of 58 years and the service pension will be ﬁxed on the basis of 33/66 of the average emoluments without any monetary limit on pension provided they have completed 33 years of qualifying service before attaining the age of 58 years failing which they will get proportionate pension. In respect of Part- B, the service up to the age of 60 years, shall be taken into account and the pension will be calculated on the basis of the existing formula of 33/80 of average emoluments with no maximum limit of Rs.1,000/- per month. Thus it is seen that the beneﬁt of new Pension Rules, as far as the petitioners are concerned, is only conﬁned to removal of ceiling and not other beneﬁts such as revised gratuity and commutation, whole those who retired after 1.4.1992, the said beneﬁts are made available. Even though option is provided under Part-A and Part-B, the petitioners in eﬀect have no option to exercise as they retired at the age of 60 years and they are neither entitled for diﬀerential gratuity or commutation consequent on the revision of pension except the removing the ceiling. The learned single Judge further held that the crux of the problem is that when all the teachers were governed by the Pension Rules, 1961 and when the pension rules are further liberalized, would it be open for the authorities to discriminate and segregate the persons who were not in service as on 1.4.1992 and those who continued after 1.4.1992. Admittedly it is an extension of pension beneﬁts. By virtue of retirement, the petitioners were made to receive the benefits under 1961 Rules, but when the rules are further liberalized, the beneﬁt of liberalized pension cannot be denied to them. Accordingly the writ petitions were allowed. In this connection, reliance has been placed by the learned single Judge on the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India [1] and V. Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay [2] and The A.P. Non-Government Retired Teachers Association Vs. The State of A.P. [3]. During the hearing, the learned standing counsel for Osmania University has submitted a report on the steps taken as per instructions at para No.2 and 3.1 of G.O.Ms.No. 277, Education (UE-I) Department dated 2.12.1993, which reads as under, “1… 2… 3… 4. Further, the pensioners who retired prior to 1.4.1992 were given an option for the reﬁxation of their pension in the light of Part B of the pension rules for University Teachers. Accordingly the pension of the teachers who submitted their options in the prescribed form enclosed to G.O.Ms.No. 277 for coming under the new pension Rules of 1992, were revised and the arrears have already been paid to them.” The learned standing counsel for the University has submitted that the writ petitioners have submitted options under new rules, their pension was revised and arrears paid to them. In view of this submission, the writ appeals are disposed of in terms of the above report. The order of the learned single Judge is accordingly modiﬁed. No order as to costs. WP Nos. 18537 OF 1995 & 24283 OF 1998: These writ petitions are also disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in W.A.Nos. 1414, 1493 to 1498, & 1500 OF 2001. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Dt. 4.9.2008 KR ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA { } [1] AIR 1983 SC 130 [2] (1998) 8 SCC 30 [3] 1991 (1) ALT 688