THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 36286 OF 1998 DATE: 29-1-2008 Between: K. Padma Sulochanabai ….. Petitioner And 1. The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 36286 OF 1998 ORDER: The petitioner questions the validity of the A.P. Aided Degree Oriental and Junior Colleges Staff Pension Rules, 1993 issued in G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 5.1.1994, (which restricts grant of pension and pensionary benefits only to aided service), as illegal and arbitrary. She seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to count her entire service as Lecturer/Principal, irrespective of the fact whether the service was aided or unaided, for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits as per the Revised A.P. Pension Rules. The petitioner was appointed as a demonstrator on 4.10.1961 at Government Women’s College, Guntur. Thereafter, she worked at KVR Government Women’s College, Kurnool from 25.10.1961 till 23.7.1963. She was appointed as a Lecturer in Botany at VSM College, Ramachandrapuram on 9.8.1968 in an aided post and worked there till 27.6.1970. Thereafter she was appointed as a lecturer at KTR Women’s College, Gudivada on 28.6.1970 where she worked upto 31.8.1970 in an unaided post. She was promoted as Principal of KTR Women’s College, Gudivada on 1.9.1970 and she worked in the said capacity till her retirement on 30.4.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. Petitioner would contend that her appointment as Lecturer at KTR Women’s College, Gudivada was approved by the Syndicate of Andhra University. She would state that, vide proceedings dated 19.3.1975, the then Director of Public Instruction had extended an ad-hoc grant for the year 1974-75 and, in view of such an ad-hoc grant, she was given salary by the management. Subsequently the 1st respondent, vide G.O.Ms.No.89 dated 3.2.1976, admitted the KTR Women’s College, Gudivada into grant-in-aid on an ad- hoc basis for the academic year 1975-76 and is said to have released an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from which the petitioner claims that her salary was paid. She would contend that again, vide G.O.Ms.No.233 dated 11.3.1977, for the academic year 1976- 77 the 1st respondent had extended ad-hoc grants from which her salary was again paid. The petitioner’s grievance is that, while she retired from service on 30.4.1996, her service from 4.10.1961 to 23.7.1963 and from 28.6.1970 to 30.6.1977 was not counted for computation of her pension on the ground that the services rendered by her from 28.6.1970 to 30.6.1977 was unaided. Petitioner would refer to Rule 3 of the A.P. Aided Degree, Oriental and Junior Colleges Staff Pension Rules, 1993 issued under G.O.Ms.No. 2 dated 5.1.1995 whereunder qualifying service of the teaching and non-teaching staff of private aided degree, oriental and junior colleges and aided service shall commence from the date on which she takes charge of the post to which she is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating capacity or a temporary capacity in an aided post and that unaided service shall not count for pension. Petitioner would contend that an employee is entitled to get his/her pension fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn and that the service rendered by her, prior to the post being admitted to grant-in-aid, must also be taken into consideration. Petitioner would state that though she was given aided salary from the ad-hoc grant, the service rendered by her up to 30.6.1977 was not included. She would refer to the case of a few other employees who were given similar benefit. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the petitioner who was hitherto working in Government Women’s College, Guntur from 27.10.1961 to 23.7.1963 resigned from government service and proceeded to USA for further studies on her own accord, that she was appointed afresh as a Lecturer in Botany in VSM College, Ramachandrapuram in an aided post on 9.8.1968 and worked thereat upto 27.6.1970, that thereafter she was appointed as a fresh candidate in the un-aided post of Lecturer of Botany at KTR women’s College, Gudivada, an un-aided college, on 29.6.1970 and that she worked thereat upto 31.8.1970, and that she was subsequently promoted as Principal from 1.9.1970 in the same college which was unaided till 1.7.1977. According to the respondents, the college was admitted to grant-in-aid with effect from 1.7.1977, vide G.O.Ms.No.1155 dated 19.12.1977, and that the petitioner worked in the capacity of Principal till she retired from service on 30.4.1996. Respondents would reiterate that it is only the service rendered from 1.7.1977 till 30.4.1996 which was required to be calculated as aided service and that her unaided service could not be taken into consideration in computation of pensionary benefits. Respondents would state that the mere fact that the management had paid salary to their staff from the ad-hoc grant extended by the government did not mean that the staff and college were brought under grant-in-aid. They would state that the post of the incumbent, as well as the college, was admitted to grant-in-aid permanently and the incumbent was paid her salary from grant-in-aid from 1.7.1977 till 30.4.1996. Respondents would refer to Rule 26 of the A.P Revised Pension Rules, 1980 to contend that resignation from a service or a post entails forfeiture of past service and hence the service rendered prior to 1.7.1977 was not counted by the Accountant General for computation of pensionary benefits. It is stated that, in so far as not counting un- aided service is concerned, orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.544 dated 11.4.1975 extending the A.P. Liberalized Pension Rules 1961 and the pensionary benefits with effect from 1.4.1973 with monetary benefits from 1.4.1974 and that, subsequently in G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 5.1.1994, the A.P. Aided Colleges Staff Pension Rules, 1993 were framed which came into force with effect from 1.11.1992. Respondents would state that, under G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 5.1.1994, unaided service is not to be counted for pension and since the petitioner was admitted to a grant-in-aid post only from 1.7.1977 till 30.4.1996, that period alone could be counted for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits. It is evident from the Rules aforementioned that it is only after the college, and the post in which a Lecturer/Principal was working, is admitted to grant-in-aid that the services are required to be reckoned for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits. The fact that the college was extended an ad-hoc grant would not enure to the petitioner’s benefit nor would it entitle her to claim that her pensionary benefits should be computed taking into consideration her unaided service since the rules, whereby pensionary benefits were extended to persons who worked in government aided colleges, specifically provided that unaided service shall not be taken into consideration. An ad-hoc grant would not amount to the staff, college and posts having been regularly admitted into grant-in-aid and in the absence of any statutory provision which confers on the petitioner the right to claim that the service rendered by her prior to the post being admitted to grant-in-aid, (either unaided service or service rendered when the college was given the benefit of ad-hoc grant), the said period cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits. What the petitioner, in effect, is seeking is for extension of grant-in-aid for the period prior to 1.7.1977 for the limited purpose of computation of her pensionary benefits. In State of Assam v. Ajit Kumar Sarma[1] the Supreme Court held that no mandamus could be issued against the State directing it to provide grant-in- aid, that what grants the State should make to private educational institutions, and upon what terms, were matters for the State to decide and in the absence of any statutory provision governing such grant, no mandamus could be issued directing the State to provide grant-in-aid. Following the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in Y.Sidda Reddy v. Government of A.P.[2] observed that no private educational institution or an employee of an educational institution had a legal right to compel financial assistance by the State. No statutory provision which entitles the petitioner to claim such a right has been brought to the notice of this Court. Viewed from any angle, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. __________ 29-1- 2008 asp [1] AIR 1965 SC 1196 [2] Judgment in W.P.8697 of 1005 dt.7.11.2005