K GUNDACCHAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three writ petitions raise common questions of law and hence they are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) In these writ petitions, constitutional validity of Section 78-B(i) of A.P. Education Act, 1982 and Rule 2 Part 'A' of the A.P. Aided Degree Oriental and Junior Colleges Staff Pension Rules, 1993 issued in G.O. Ms. No.2, Education (CE-II) Department, dated 5-1-1994 are assailed and sought for consequential direction to fix the pension/family pension of the petitioners by applying A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 with effect from the dates of their respective retirements.

(3.) Writ Petition No. 8722/1996 was filed by the Affiliated College Teachers Association and Teachers working in the Private Aided Colleges. The widow of the deceased pensioner is also one of the petitioners. The petitioners worked in various private aided colleges and they retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years. It is necessary to trace the previous events for the introduction of pension scheme to the Teachers. The Government in G.O. Ms.No.3372, dated 31-10-1961 issued rules called A.P. Teachers Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Pension and Gratuity Rules, 1961 wherein the teachers employed in the schools run by the Aided Managements as well as the local bodies were granted retirement benefits, and the benefits were granted to those who retired from service on or after 1-4-1961. However, certain teachers who retired from service prior to 1-4-1961 made representations and the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 1649, dated 5-7-1996 granting financial assistance to the teachers who have retired from service prior to 1-4-1961 instead of granting the retirement benefits under the aforesaid rules. By G.O. Ms. No.1132, Education-I Department, dated 16-11-1973, the Government extended the A.P. Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961 to the teachers working in the Aided Schools and Local Bodies, but they were not extended to the teachers who were working in the Aided Colleges. However, G.O.Ms. No.544, dated 11-4-1975 was issued in respect of Lecturers and the financial benefits were granted only from 1-1-1974 while giving retrospective operation. The Government issued A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for brevity RPR 80) in G.O. (P) No.88, dated 22-3-1980 applicable to all State Government employees. These rules were made applicable to the teachers under All Private Aided Managements, who retired from service on completion of 55 years of age by G.O. Ms. No.902, dated 11-11-1992. But, subsequently, an amendment was issued in G.O. Rt. No. 1026, dated 19-8-1993 wherein the words 'Private Aided Managements' was deleted and 'Private Aided Schools' was substituted, by which all the teaching and non-teaching staff are denied the benefits of RPR 80. It has been the grievance of the Association that the teachers in the Aided Schools and Teachers in the Aided Colleges form an homogeneous cadre and denying the pension benefits working in the schools while giving pension under the RPR 80 to the Teachers in the schools and therefore they have been requesting the Government to make applicable RPR 80. This request appears to have convinced the Government and accordingly brought amendmnets to the Education Act, The Government amended A.P. Education Act by Act 17 of 1993 which came into force from 13-7-1993 by which Sections 78-A and 78-B were inserted in the Parent Act. Section 78-A deals with the age of superannuation of the staff working in the Private Aided Institutions while Section 78-B mandates that all the employees in the Private Aided Institutions shall be entitled to pension with effect from 1-11-1992 in accordance with the prescribed rules de hors the executive instructions. It is the case of the petitioners that Section 78B(i) creates unreasonable classification of teachers into two categories those who retired from service prior to 1-1 i-1992 and those who retired from service after 1-11-1992. It is their contention that under the rules those who retired prior to 1-11-1992 would not be entitled for pension in RPR 80 and also the other benefits of gratuity and family pension, while the persons who were retired after 1-11-1992 would get all the benefits under Revised Pension Rules. It is their case that under 1961 Rules, the maximum ceiling on pension is fixed as Rs.1,000/- per month while the RPR 80, different higher rates were prescribed. The rules which were framed in pursuance of Section 78B on 5-4-1994 in so far as Part 'A' is concenred is also discriminatory as the cut off date namely 1-11-1992 has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, they submit that the petitioners who were retired prior to 1-11-1992 arc also eligible for the benefit of RPR 80 and other benefits under the said rules. The petitioners further submit that some recoveries were made while refixing the pay scales from 1-11-1992 and the said recoveries are illegal and arbitrary'. It is also the case of die petitioners that the family pension is not granted to the widows of the deceased pensioners who died between the period from 1-4-1973 to 1-11-1992 on the ground that the RPR 80 was given benefit only from 1-11-1992.