THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1389 OF 2001 DATED JUNE, 2010 BETWEEN Marty Gangadhara Sastry … Petitioner And Commissioner & Director of School Education, Nampally, Hyderabad. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1389 OF 2001 ORDER: The petitioner retired as a Hindi Pandit Grade-I in the Hindu College High School, Machilipatnam, on 31.05.1994. His pension was sanctioned in the year 2000 taking into account the service rendered by him in the said post from 1976 upto the date of his retirement. His complaint in the present writ petition is that the service rendered by him as the Principal in the Hindi Premi Mandali, thereafter renamed as Rashtra Bharati from 22.08.1962 to 30.04.1973 has been ignored. He accordingly seeks a direction to the respondents to count the said period for the purpose of pension and to refix and release his pensionary benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as the Principal of the Hindi Premi Mandali, Vuyyuru, under proceedings dated 22.08.1962. The Hindi Premi Mandali, Vuyyuru, was permitted to start a Junior Hindi Pandit Training Course during 1962-63 vide G.O.Ms.No.2487 dated 09.08.1962. This proceeding is placed on record and demonstrates that the Government had informed the Hindi Premi Mandali, Vuyyuru, that grand-in-aid would be extended only if the Government of India agreed to include the course under centrally sponsored scheme for 1963-64. The Junior Hindi Pandit Training Course conducted under the auspices of the Hindi Premi Mandali, Vuyyuru, was thereafter shifted to Vijayawada under G.O.Ms.No.1767, Education Department, dated 06.07.1964 and was renamed ‘Rashtra Bharati’. It appears that the Government decided to abolish the Junior Hindi Pandit Training Course in the year 1973 and consequently the petitioner’s employment as the Principal of the Hindi Premi Mandali/Rashtra Bharati came to an end. The material placed on record demonstrates that the petitioner made representations seeking alternative appointment as a Hindi Pandit. The Director of Public Institution, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, by proceedings dated 28.06.1973 forwarded the petitioner’s representation to the Commissioner for Vijayawada Municipality, Vijayawada, requesting him to consider the petitioner’s case if possible. Eventually, the petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Pandit Grade-I in the Hindu College High School at Machilipatnam in the year 1976. There was therefore break in his service from 1973 to 1976. The petitioner made a representation on 01.12.1993 well before his retirement to the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, marking a copy to the District Educational Officer, Krishna District, the third respondent, seeking condonation of the said break in service for the purpose of his pension fixation. No orders appeared to have been passed on the said representation. His pension was sanctioned under the proceedings dated 28.01.2000 taking into account the service rendered by him only from 1976. Further grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been given the benefit of an advance increment though he was Post Graduate since his inception in service. He possessed the qualification of Hindi Sahitya Ratna which is equivalent to Post Graduation in Hindi and as per rules he claimed entitled to an advance increment. His complaint is that the said increment was not released during his pay fixation. The District Educational Officer, Krishna, the third respondent, speaking on behalf of himself and the first and second respondents, stated that the petitioner had not submitted any recorded evidence in proof of his having worked as the Principal of the Hindi Premi Mandali/Rashtra Bharati from 22.08.1962 to 30.04.1973. While admitting that the pensionary benefits of the petitioner had been fixed taking into account only the service rendered by him from 1976, the third respondent stated that the petitioner had not submitted any representation or recorded evidence for inclusion of the earlier service allegedly rendered by him for calculation of pensionary benefits. He further stated that the respondents had no objection to sanction the pensionary benefits to the petitioner if the said service was ‘qualified service’ for pensionary benefits subject to production of recorded evidence. The third respondent also admitted that the break in the service of the petitioner from 1973 to 1976 is liable to be condoned under the provisions of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 provided the petitioner demonstrated that the service allegedly rendered by him from 1962 to 1973 is ‘qualified service’. With regard to the sanction of an advance increment on the ground of Post Graduation qualification, the third respondent admitted that the Hindi Sahitya Ratna possessed by the petitioner was equivalent to Post Graduation in Hindi. However, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner never made any representation during his entire service for sanction of the advance increment and therefore no fault could be laid at the door of the respondents. He further stated that the respondents had no objection to sanction an additional increment as per rules, had the petitioner submitted his proposal for sanction through the School. Heard Sri P.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education for respondents 1 to 3. Respondents 4 and 5 despite service of notice did not choose to put in their appearance in person or through counsel. Pension, as oft stated by the Supreme Court, is neither a bounty, nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. It is not an ex gratia payment but a payment for the past services rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the heyday of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in the lurch [D.S. NAKARA v. UNION OF INDIA[1] and SUBRATA SEN V. UNION OF INDIA[2]]. It is therefore not open to the respondent authorities to dissuasively wipe away the past service rendered by the petitioner merely on the ground that there is no recorded evidence available with it. The petitioner has placed on record various proceedings indicating the control and supervision by the Government of Andhra Pradesh over the institution in question, viz., Hindi Premi Mandali/Rashtra Bharati. His representation dated 01.12.1993 seeking condonation of the break in service also forms part of the material. In spite of his specific reference to this representation in his affidavit, the counter filed by the respondent authorities is significantly silent in this regard. Except for baldly stating that the petitioner did not make any representation supported by recorded evidence, the respondent authorities do not explain as to what prevents them from examining their own past records for verifying whether the petitioner did, in fact, serve as the Principal of the Hindi Premi Mandali/Rashtra Bharati as claimed by him. The proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.2487 dated 09.08.1962 indicate that the Government of Andhra Pradesh was also ready to extend grant-in-aid to the Hindi Premi Mandali, Vuyyuru, subject to approval from the Government of India. Nothing is stated in the counter as to whether the institution in question did, in fact, receive grant-in-aid thereafter. The stand put forth by the respondent authorities in their counter indicates that sufficient exercise was not made to verify the petitioner’s claim and on the other hand, the burden is placed upon him. This burden, in my opinion, has been sufficiently discharged in the light of the material placed on record by the petitioner. It is therefore necessary for the respondent authorities to examine the issue afresh by verifying their own records so as to decide the petitioner’s entitlement for reckoning of the past service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. I may also state that the argument of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner should be non-suited on the ground of delay as he had retired in the year 1994 and approached this Court 7 years thereafter is liable to be rejected. It is the admitted position that the petitioner’s pension was sanctioned only in the year 2000 and therefore the cause of action with regard to the denial of his past service arose then. He filed the writ petition in January, 2001. Therefore, there is no delay worth the name on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. With regard to the petitioner’s entitlement for an additional increment for his Post Graduation qualification, it is relevant to note that the petitioner’s prayer in the writ petition does not speak of this aspect. However, his grievance in this regard is clearly spelt out in the affidavit. Further, the respondent authorities also do not deny the petitioner’s entitlement as such to an additional increment but the stand is taken that the petitioner did not seek the increment due to him during his entire service. The third respondent went to the extent of stating that the authorities are willing to sanction the additional increment as per rules if the petitioner had submitted his proposal for sanction of the same through the School. Keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner had retired as long back as in the year 1994 and there is no material placed in evidence of the petitioner has ever asked for an additional increment during his career, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any arrears of salary on the ground of such additional increment being due to him. However, taking note of the fair offer put forth by the respondent authorities in the counter affidavit, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent authorities for sanction of the additional increment due to him for Post Graduation qualification and the respondent authorities shall consider the same as per rules only for the purpose of refixation of the petitioner’s pay for calculating pensionary benefits. In the result, the writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above directing the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner for reckoning his past service from 22.08.1962 to 30.04.1973 as the Principal of Hindi Premi Mandali for the purpose of his pensionary benefits duly condoning the break in service if it is established that the said service counts as ‘qualified service’. This exercise shall be undertaken by examination of the material put forth by the petitioner in support of his claim along with the respondents’ own record which would manifest the veracity of the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner shall make a representation putting forth his claim for an additional increment for his Post Graduate qualification and if such representation is made, the respondent authorities shall consider the same in accordance with rules only for the purpose of refixation of his pay for calculating his pensionary benefits. No arrears of salary on this count are payable to the petitioner. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _________ JUNE, 2010. VGSR [1] (1983) 1 SCC 305 [2] (2001) 8 SCC 71