APHC010050532011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 6756/2011 Between: 1. T.ANANTHANARAYANA, S/O LATE T.LAKSHMINARAYANA, RESEARCH ASSISTANT IN SANSKRIT CUM LECTURER R/O DOOR NO.265-A, MITTA STREET, TIRUPATI 1. SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY REP BYITS REGISTRAR, TIRUPATI. 2. THE SYNDICATE REP.BYITS VICE CHANCELLOR, TIRUPATHI. 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BYITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. Petition under Article 226 of the Const circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.E1(I)/Retirement/2010 dt. 17 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, discriminatory, violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and AP. University Act, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.208 dt. 29-9-1999 of the Respondents and subsequent G.O.s., the Stature Rule 14 of the Respondent University and consequently by setting aside the same, direct the respondents to continue me research Assistant IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 6756/2011 T.ANANTHANARAYANA, S/O LATE T.LAKSHMINARAYANA, RESEARCH ASSISTANT IN SANSKRIT CUM LECTURER R/O DOOR A, MITTA STREET, TIRUPATI-517501 ...PETITIONER AND SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY REP BYITS REGISTRAR, THE SYNDICATE OF SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, REP.BYITS VICE CHANCELLOR, TIRUPATHI. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BYITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.E1(I)/Retirement/2010 dt. 17 respondent as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, discriminatory, violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and AP. University Act, contrary to 1999 of the Respondents and subsequent G.O.s., the e 14 of the Respondent University and consequently by setting aside the same, direct the respondents to continue me research Assistant IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] T.ANANTHANARAYANA, S/O LATE T.LAKSHMINARAYANA, RESEARCH ASSISTANT IN SANSKRIT CUM LECTURER R/O DOOR ...PETITIONER SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY REP BYITS REGISTRAR, OF SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BYITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ...RESPONDENT(S): itution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.E1(I)/Retirement/2010 dt. 17-9-2010 respondent as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, discriminatory, violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and AP. University Act, contrary to 1999 of the Respondents and subsequent G.O.s., the e 14 of the Respondent University and consequently by setting aside the same, direct the respondents to continue me research Assistant 2 cum-Lecturer till I reach the age of 60 years with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WVMP 1444 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim orders passed in WPMP No. 8409 of 2011, dt. 21.03.2011 in WP No. 6756 of 2011 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2011(WPMP 8409 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings No.E1(I)/Retirement/2010 dt. 17-9-2010 of the 1st respondent, while directing the Respondent to continue the petitioner as Research Assistant -cum-Lecturer in the Respondent University till he reaches the age of 60 years and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 3096 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP 25230 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st Respondent to pay pensionary benefits to the petitioner for the service rendered to the 1st Respondent University till the date of his retirement i.e. 31-3-2013 such as leave encashment, provident fund, Gratuity, commutation of pension and other pensionary benefits including salary for the period from 1-4-2011 to 31-3-2013 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VENKATA RAMA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMESH BABU TALLURI SC For S.V.UNIVERSITY,TIRUPATI The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a declaration of the proceedings dated 17.09.2010 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, and a further direction is sought for continuing the petitioner’s service as Research Assistant till the petitioner attains the age of 60 years, and also seeks a direction for release of all consequential benefits. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the 1st respondent-University as Sanskrit Research Assistant on 13.08.1975. It is submitted that the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings duly notifying the various dates of superannuation of the employees enlisted therein. The petitioner was due to retire on 31.03.2011 on completing the age of 58 years. The petitioner has filed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the 1st respondent has treated the service of the petitioner as that of a non-teaching staff and intimated the date of superannuation. 3. It is submitted that the Syndicate Resolution dated 20.02.1987 had accepted the recommendations of the committee, which resolved to extend the age of retirement of research staff from 58 years to 60 years. It is submitted that, by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner had served the 1st respondent till attaining the age of 60 years, and the petitioner has also been released the service benefits including pension for the said period. It is submitted that though the respondents have released 4 the pensionary benefits, they have not paid the salary for the period of service from 58 years to 60 years. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the G.Os relied upon by the petitioner cannot be made applicable, as the petitioner was not considered as a teaching staff and was not considered for re-designation of his post as Lecturer/Assistant Professor. It is stated that the concurrence of the Government was not issued for re-designation of the post of the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner were extended in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court, and the respondents had filed a vacate petition bringing to the notice of this Court the factual position. 6. A detailed counter is also filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is also stated in the counter that five (05) of the Research Assistants were re-designated as Lecturers. However, the petitioner was not re-designated as a Lecturer and, as such, his services could not be extended beyond 58 years. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the petitioner is not seeking extension of U.G.C. scales. It is submitted that the petitioner joined in the year 1975 as a Research Assistant and that G.O.Ms.No.208 dated 29.06.1999, which made it mandatory to possess a 5 Ph.D. qualification for appointment as a Lecturer, has to be applied prospectively and cannot be made applicable to the services of the petitioner. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed service as Research Assistant for two (02) more years beyond the notified date of superannuation, i.e., 31.03.2011. It is also not in dispute that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have extended the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. It is equally not in dispute that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not released the salary for the said period of two (02) years beyond 31.03.2011 till the petitioner attained the age of 60 years. 9. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to release the salary for the said period, and, considering the submission that the petitioner had continued in service till attaining the age of 60 years, the petitioner’s date of retirement on attaining the age of 60 years shall be taken into account for the purpose of service benefits, including re-computation of pensionary benefits, by taking the date of retirement as 31.03.2013. At any rate, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall release the salary due and payable to the petitioner within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 16.04.2026 PNS