T. KRISHNA RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed with the following prayer:

(2.) Heard Sri A.V.V.S.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services- I, II and III representing the respondents and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners worked as regular Government employees in different departments and retired by attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners were deprived of annual grade increments falls due on the day following their retirement, though they have discharged their duties for the entire twelve months. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.235 Finance and Planning (FW-FR.II) Department, dtd. 27/10/1998, considered the recommendations made by the Officers Committee and ordered that where an employee's date of increment falls due on the day following his retirement, he may be given the benefit of increment notionally, purely for the purpose of pensionary benefits, subject to the condition that this should not be considered for any other purposes. According to the said G.O., the employees, who are deprived their annual grade increment due to retirement from service just one day prior, are entitled to get the annual grade increment for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The petitioners herein also retired from service one day prior to their date of annual grade increment and as such they are entitled for the benefit extended by way of G.O.Ms.No.235, dtd. 27/10/1998. Further, the Government has categorically stated that the employees, who fall under the scope and purview of G.O.Ms.No.235 are rare and few and that too, they rendered complete twelve months of service in one year. In spite of the same, the respondents did not grant or extend the said annual grade increment to the petitioners herein on the ground that the petitioners retired from service prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.235, which is illegal and arbitrary. All the pensioners belong to one class and there cannot be discrimination in granting benefit which arises out of their employment. By virtue of the said G.O.Ms.No.235, the employees, who retired from service after the retirement of the petitioners herein are drawing more pension than that of the petitioners. Denying the benefit of annual grade increment on the basis of their date of retirement, on the ground that they retired prior to the issuance of said G.O., is a clear discrimination in payment of emoluments to the petitioners, including regular pension, till their last breath. In fact, there is no restriction of applicability of G.O.Ms.No.235 to the employees who retired prior to the date of issuance of the said G.O. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara vs. State of India,1983(1) SCC 305 wherein it was held that when pension rules are amended, liberalised pension scheme becomes operative to all the pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled for a liberalised view and are entitled to an increment just a day next to the date of their retirement. Further, the Government issued a clarification Memo No.18541- C/501/FR.II/05, dtd. 3/8/2005 with regard to the payment of increment after completion of one year service. According to the said memo, every employee, who rendered the complete twelve months of service, is eligible for one increment whether or not he is alive. Though the petitioners are fully eligible and are entitled to get their annual grade increment which fell due on the very next day of their retirement, the respondents are not justified in denying the same. It is settled law that an accrued right cannot be denied on technical grounds. In a similar case, the erstwhile High Court of A.P., in W.P.No.14524 of 2001, directed the respondents therein to implement G.O.Ms.No.235, dtd. 27/10/1998 and pay pensionary benefits to the petitioners therein by granting notional increment. Aggrieved by the same, respondents therein preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in W.P.No.1950 of 2001 and the said Division Bench of this Court, after hearing elaborate arguments of both the sides, dismissed the appeal by upholding the order passed by the learned single Judge. The above said judgment of the Division Bench is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioners herein and they are entitled to get the same relief. In another case, where the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.87 (Finance & Planning (FW- Pen.I) Department, dtd. 25/5/1998 for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn instead of last ten months average emoluments, some of the employees approached the Administrative Tribunal by filing O.S.No.50303 of 1999 and the Tribunal passed orders in favour of the employees holding that the employees retired prior to 25/5/1998 and living on the date of issuance of the said G.O. are entitled for the arrears from 25/5/1998. The writ petition filed challenging the order passed in the said O.A. came to be dismissed by this Court, so also, the SLP filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner No.1 submitted representation to the head of the department to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.235. However, the same was rejected vide memo dtd. 18/6/2016 on the ground that he retired from service prior to the issuance of the said G.O. and that it is an old case. By virtue of non- sanctioning of annual grade increment to which the petitioners are eligible under G.O.Ms.No.235, they are receiving less pension every month which is continuous and recurring cause of action and as such the same is not hit by limitation and ultimately prayed to allow the writ petition as prayed for.