DEVARAKONDA LAKSHMI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was appointed as a Library Assistant in Sports Authority of A.P. on consolidated pay of Rs.750/- per month vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 23.3.1988. Subsequently, she was extended the scale of pay of Rs.910-30-1240-35-1625 w.e.f. 1.9.1992 in the post of Library Assistant. On 22.9.1997 she was promoted as Senior Assistant and ultimately retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1997.

(2.) Aggrieved by the alleged action of the respondents in not extending the retirement benefits, including pension, she filed W.P.No.5365 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 28.03.2003 with a direction to the Sports Authority of A.P. to pass appropriate orders with regard to the claim of the petitioner for retirement benefits. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent vide memo dated 30.06.2003 informed the petitioner that since she had rendered less than the prescribed qualifying service of ten years, she was entitled to receive only the service gratuity as per Rule 46 read with Rule 45 (1) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and since the same was already paid to her, there were no dues payable to her.

(3.) Claiming that the period during which she worked on consolidated pay shall also be taken into consideration for calculating the "qualifying service" the petitioner made several representations before the respondents 1 and 2. In response to the same, the 2nd respondent - Sports Authority of A.P. - by letter dated 27.9.2003 informed the petitioner that the services rendered by the petitioner on consolidated pay from 24.03.1988 to 31.8.1992 cannot be taken into account for the purpose of qualifying service in the absence of specific orders by the Government relaxing the Pension Rules in her favour. The 1st respondent - Government of A.P. - vide memo dated 12.02.2004 informed that there were no specific provisions in the pension rules for counting the service rendered on consolidated pay for the purpose of qualifying service and accordingly rejected the petitioner's request for releasing the pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.