STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. M. RAJA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for Certiorari to quash order, dated 13.08.2015, in O.A.No.2675 of 2014 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

(2.) We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Services (A.P.) appearing for the petitioners and Sri D.Y.Karunakar Dayanidhi, learned counsel representing respondent No.1, the alleged caveator. Respondent No.1 was appointed temporarily as Junior Auditor in the office of the District Audit Officer, State Audit, Anantapur on daily wage basis, after he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange under proceedings Rc.No.586/A1/1986, dated 12.07.1986. Thereafter, he was absorbed as Junior Auditor against regular vacancy on 04.08.1990. His services were regularized in the said cadre and he was further promoted to the post of Senior Auditor and has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2011. Even before the retirement, he made a representation on 20.01.2011 to the petitioners, requesting them to count the temporary service rendered by him in the cadre of Junior Auditor prior to his absorption. As no order was passed on his representation, he has approached the Tribunal by way of the abovementioned O.A. On consideration of the rival pleas of the parties, the Tribunal has allowed the O.A by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed this writ petition. Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, the Rules) deal with the qualifying service of a temporary employee for the purpose of payment of pension. These Rules read as under:

(3.) From the above reproduced Rules, it is clear that qualifying service of a Government servant commences from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity, subject to the exceptions contained in clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 13 of the Rules. A temporary employee shall further satisfy the conditions stipulated in Rule 14 of the Rules for counting his temporary service for pensionary benefits. Under this Rule, unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government or under the conditions determined by the Government, such service was not qualified for pension. The meaning of the word service under sub - Rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Rules is explained in sub -Rule (2) thereof, as per which the service is under the Government and the salary is paid by the Government from the Consolidated Fund of the State, but the same does not include the service of a non -pensionable establishment, unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the duties of respondent No.1 and his pay were regulated by the Government. Further it is also not in dispute that respondent No.1 was paid by the Government from the Consolidated Fund of the State and that the post is a pensionable one. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that temporary service of respondent No.1 shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the abovementioned Rules.