M. Sreedevi vs State Of Telangana And Another

1 Heard M/s.Divya Adepu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Housing (1st respondent) and Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned standing counsel for the second respondent.

2 Petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to suspend the G.O.Ms.No.2 of 2019 dated 02.12.2019 to the extent of excluding the petitioner from the benefits thereunder forthwith and to further direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.12.2019 for extending the benefits under the above referred G.O.

3 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challenging the action of the erstwhile A.P.Housing Board, ordering retrenchment of 487 work charged employees and NMRs, W.P.No.8391 & Batch of 2005 were filed by some of the employees and the High Court vide order dated 08.02.2011 held that the retrenchment was illegal and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioners therein with continuity of service but without any back wages and other attendant benefits. Writ appeal and Special Leave Application were dismissed. Pursuant to the said orders, the petitioner herein along with 52 other charged / NMR employees were reinstated into service vide orders dated 16.11.2012 and that the petitioner was extended the notional increments and other benefits on par with the Government employees till date and that the petitioner has been discharging her services and availing the entitlements as a regular Board employee. However, subsequently, proceedings dated 05.12.2016 were issued by the respondent Board to the 52 employees extending the benefit of revision and pay scale also during the period of retrenchment.

4 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the services of the petitioner were provincialized after completion of 10 years of service on 28.07.2005 treating the petitioner as Government employee vide proceedings dated 11.07.2016.

5 It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provencialization proceedings specifically state that by virtue of provencialization of services, the work charged employees are entitled to avail all benefits such as leave, pension on par with regular Board employees with effect from 28.07.2005. It is his further contention that though the petitioner’s services were provencialized way back in the year 2005, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 02.12.2019 limits the payment of pension only to 42 employees out of 52 employees of the W.P.No.8391 & Batch of 2005 by wrongly stating that the other NMR’s were not provincialized as on the date of order of the above writ petition.

6 The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the second respondent issued Circular dated 08.10.2019 asking the employees who were due to retire or attain superannuation in the year 2020 to submit pension papers. But concomitantly the impugned G.O. was also issued extending the benefits to only 42 out of batch of 52 employees. The G.O. excludes the petitioner stating that the NMR could not be included as their services were not provincialized as on the date of the order passed in W.P.No.8391 & Batch of 2005. The petitioner was due to retire by 30.06.2020. It is further submitted that the petitioner made a representation on 27.12.2019 to the second respondent to consider her case but in vain. Hence the present writ petition.

7 Refuting the allegations made by the petitioner, Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned standing counsel for the second respondent submitted that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 3.02.2019 (sic. 02.12.2019) was issued wherein the name of the petitioner was not found place for the reason that she was retrenched while working as NMR in 2005 and reinstated in November 2012 in terms of the Order dated 08.02.2011 passed in W.P.No.8391 of 2005 and batch and that her services were not provincialized as on the date of the order, as such, question of provincialization with effect from 28.07.2005 does not arise. He further submitted that in the above writ petitions this Court granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages and attendant benefits to all the 52 petitioners of the above writ petitions out of which 42 were work charged employees and 10 were NMRs and that the petitioner was one of the NMRs at the time of reinstatement. The petitioner along with another junior NMR was extended the benefit of regularization in 2013 and she was notionally appointed as Work Inspector ignoring the other 8 senior NMR’s above them vide proceedings dated 13.08.2013.

8 The learned counsel for the second respondent further submitted that the services of the petitioner were provincialized only in the year 2016 and not on 28.07.2005, the date on which the petitioner was not in service and that the employees who were granted pension under the impugned G.O were already provincialized as on the date of the orders of this Court i.e. 8.02.2011. The petitioner was not in service from 11.04.2005 till 16.11.2012; therefore, the question of regularization on 28.07.2005 is contrary to law. It is specifically submitted that since the services of the petitioner were provincialized only in the year 2016 and not on 28.07.2005, the petitioner is not entitled to pension.

9 The learned counsel for the second respondent further submitted that since the services of the petitioner were provincialized only in the year 2016, G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 read with Government Memo dated 573 / 225 /A3/ PC III / 97, dated 01.09.1997 would come into play wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the services of daily wage employees / NMRs have been prescribed by the Government including issue of orders of regularization of services with prospective effect only. Hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

10 I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

11 The proceedings No.995/B2/2013 dated 11.07.2016 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Telangana), Gruhakalpa, M.J.Road, Hyderabad, read that “In pursuance of the orders issued in the reference 1st and 2nd cited, the services of some of the Work-Charged employees working in the office of the Executive Engineer, Central Division, A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad, who have completed 10 years of service on the dates shown in Column No.4 mentioned therein are provincialised and regarded as Government employees.” In the said Order, the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl.No.5 and her services were shown to have been regularized / provincialised with effect from 28.07.2005. from the said order it is manifest that by virtue of provincialisation of services of the work charged employees mentioned are entitled to avail all the benefits such as leaves, pension etc., on par with regular Board employees with effect from the dates as noted against their names in Column No.5 i.e. 28.07.2005 in the case of the petitioner.

12 So from the above proceedings, it has to be invariably noticed and held that the services of the petitioner were provincialised with effect from 28.07.2005. The respondents are not disputing or denying the said proceedings. Surprisingly, the contention of the respondents is that the services of the petitioner were provincialised in the year 2016 and further contend that petitioner was not in service from 11.04.2005 till 16.11.2012; therefore, the question of regularization on 28.07.2005 is contrary to law. It has to be borne in mind that the petitioner joined the services of the respondents initially in the year 1995 and by virtue of retrenchment decision taken by the respondents she was out of service. The said retrenchment notice was struck down by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in batch of writ petitions by common order dated 08.02.2011 holding that the retrenchment was illegal and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioners therein with continuity of service but without any back wages and other attendant benefits. So, by virtue of the said order, the petitioner was reinstated into service with continuity of service, may be without back wages and other attendant benefits. But it cannot be ignored that by virtue of the orders passed in the writ petition the petitioner had been on the rolls of the respondent organization. Therefore, it has to be understood that the petitioner had completed 10 years of service by 28.07.2005, by which date, her services were provincialised by the respondents themselves. Therefore, having provincialised the services of the petitioner by the proceedings No.995/B2/2013 dated 11.07.2016, the respondents now cannot take a stand that the petitioner was NMR and so she was not a regular employee of the Board.

13 Moreover, at a glance to the proceedings No.320/WC. Estt / EE (CD) / 2013 dated 26.09.2014 issued by the office of the Executive Engineer (HG), Central Division, Telangana State Housing Board, Hyderabad would reveal that the pay scale of the writ petitioner was revised and increments were granted from the year 1995 onwards till 2004. But no increments were released from 11.04.2005 to 27.11.2012 because of retrenchment. It is significant to note that the pay of the Work Inspector i.e. petitioner in PRC 2010 was fixed in the time scale of 9200-27000, but permitted to draw the pay and allowances with effect from 14.08.2013 i.e. the date of joining duty as Work Inspector and the period from 28.07.2005 to 13.08.2013 has been treated as notional.

14 The proceedings dated 05.12.2016 of the Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner, Telangana Housing Board, would go to show that it was decided to sanction notional increments to all the work charged employees, who have not received the compensation, who were reinstated into service as per the directions of the High Court in W.P.No.8391 of 2015 treating the period from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement as ‘on duty’ and also to extend the benefits of revision of pay scales by adding notional increments to all the work charged individuals who are reinstated into service. So, having treated the period from the date of retrenchment and the date of reinstatement as ‘on duty’, now the respondents cannot take a stand that the petitioner was retrenched in the year 2005 and she was not on the rolls as on the date of order of the High Court.

15 Therefore, taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents are not justified in issuing the impugned G.O.Ms.No.2 of 2019 dated 02.12.2019 to the extent of excluding the petitioner from the benefits thereunder. In that view of the matter, the writ petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for.

16 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the G.O.Ms.No.2 of 2019 dated 02.12.2019 in so far as excluding the petitioner from the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits is hereby set aside and the respondents are hereby directed to grant pension and other pensionary benefits according to the entitlement of the writ petitioner. No order as to costs.

17 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.