APHC010026502021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Wednesday, the Twenty Sixth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Writ Petition Between: V.V.B Rajasekhara Rao S/o late Venkateswara Rao and another The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD Department, Secretariat Counsel for the Petitioner Sri S. Satyanarayana Rao Counsel for the Respondent(S): G.P for Municipal Administration & Urban Development The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Twenty Sixth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition (AT) No. 248 of 2022 (O.A.No.2719 of 2018) V.V.B Rajasekhara Rao S/o late Venkateswara Rao and another ...Petitioners AND Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal A & UD Department, Secretariat and another …..Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Satyanarayana Rao Counsel for the Respondent(S): G.P for Municipal Administration & Urban Development The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] V.V.B Rajasekhara Rao S/o late Venkateswara Rao and another Petitioners 2 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.248 of 2022 THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Writ Petition (AT) No.248 of 2022 (OA No.2719 of 2018) ORDER: This petition was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1983, aggrieved by the Memo No.290587/CRDA/2017, dated 29.11.2017 of the 1st respondent including consequential endorsement vide Rc.No.2109/2017-Estt., dated 09.01.2018, of the 2nd respondent rejecting the claims of the applicants to extend the benefits of notional seniority and pay fixation for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits from the date of completion of five years of service as laid down by the apex Court judgment, dated 17.08.2015, in B.Srinivasulu Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation1. 2. The case of the petitioners briefly is as follows: a. The 1st and 2nd petitioners were appointed as Work Inspectors on NMR basis through employment exchange with effect from 13.10.1986 and 18.10.1986 respectively. On completion of five years of regular service, the Vice Chairman, VGTM UDA issued proceedings No. A2-2042/89, dated 08.04.1992, in pursuance of resolution No.248, dated 08.04.1992, extending the benefit of minimum time scale of pay attached to the post with usual allowances. Thereafter, taking into consideration their regular service, the benefit of time scale, including the benefit of PRC like regular employees, has been enhanced from time to time from 1992 onwards. 1 2018 (4) ALD 590 (DB) # Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015 3 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.248 of 2022 b. In furtherance of the scheme of regularization of services of persons appointed on temporary basis vide G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning, dated 22.04.1994, their services were regularized with prospective effect vide G.O.Ms.No.597, dated 29.08.2008, instead of from the day on which they completed five years of service. As a result, the petitioners are losing their pension and pensionary benefits. The petitioners made representations, dated 22.04.2017 to the 2nd respondent to consider their past service rendered prior to 29.08.2008 for the purpose of pensionary benefit by notional pay fixation, by referring to the names of B.Sanjeeva Rao and D. Ravi Kumar who got such relief in pursuance of order of the A.P Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.8946 of 2011, dt.22.11.2011. The 2nd respondent forwarded them to the 1st respondent to pass revised orders. The 1st respondent issued Memo No.290587/CRDA/2017, dt.29.11.2017 without specifying whether the request was considered or rejected. Basing on the same, the 2nd respondent issued consequential endorsement, dated 09.01.2018 impugned in the present petition. c. By order, dated 30.12.2022, the writ petition came to be allowed by this Court. The operative portion of the order passed in the writ petition reads as follows: “6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018, wherein the same view to that of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the same subject matter, wherein while disposing the batch of writ petitions, directed the respondents therein to extend the benefit of judgment of the 4 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.248 of 2022 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.Srinivasulu Vs.Nellore Municipal Corporation, wherein it was held as follows: “On the above analysis, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the authorities concerned to extend the benefit of B.Srinivasulu’s case, to the employees in this batch of cases by reckoning their services from the date of completion of five years in service on or before 25.11.1993, for the purpose of their pension and pensionary benefits.” 7. In view of the above said circumstances and following the decisions cited supra, this Court is allowing the writ petition, while directing the respondents to count the earlier service of the petitioner rendered from 25.11.1993 for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits including fixation of notional pay and seniority within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further the impugned proceedings dated 29.11.2017 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential endorsement dated 09.01.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent is declared as illegal, arbitrary and same is hereby set aside. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 3. The matter was carried in appeal in W.A.No.240 of 2024 by the 2nd respondent/Commissioner, APCRDA, on the ground that the writ petition was disposed of without notice to the appellant, who is an affected party. The said writ appeal came to be allowed, by judgment, 5 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.248 of 2022 dated 15.03.2024. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “ Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. Matter is remitted back to the leaned single Judge for consideration and disposal afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties.” 4. Thus, the writ petition came up again before this Court. 5. Heard Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Services IV appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel representing Smt. S.Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent/ CRDA. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was held that the respondent authorities ought to have regularized the service of the applicant from the cut off date i.e.25.11.1993 as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.Srinivasulu (supra) and which was followed in the case of Government of A.P. Vs. N.Venkaiah and others2 and by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.2087 of 2018 in its order dated 25.09.2018 in directing the respondents therein to extend the benefit of past service from 25.11.1993 onwards to the applicant for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits only with a clarification that the applicant is not entitled to any monitory benefits for the said period. He further submitted that on 23.07.2024, the apex Court, in SLP No.13813 of 2018 and batch cases in the Grater Hyderabad Municipal 2 2018(4) ALT 6 (D.B.) 6 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.248 of 2022 Corporation and others Vs P.Lingamma and others, upheld the order in Government of A.P. Vs. N.Venkaiah and others (2 supra) which was relied on in O.A.No.2087 of 2018. 7. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader, representing respondents, fairly admitted the legal proposition. 8. In view of the above settled legal proposition, the applicants are entitled to the benefit of past service from 25.11.1993 for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and not for any other monitoring benefit for pay and allowances for the said period. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________ ___ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dated 26.03.2025 RAR/PNV