APHC010371792021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Monday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B S Bhanumathi Writ Petition Between: Dr. K Chalapathi Rao and Others The Director and Others Counsel for the petitioners: 1. Penjuri Venugopal Counsel for the respondents: 1. GP for Services III The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B S Bhanumathi Writ Petition (AT) No: 846 of 2021 (O.A.No.1481 of 2017) Dr. K Chalapathi Rao and Others ...Petitioners AND The Director and Others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Counsel for the respondents: following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] ...Petitioners ...Respondents 2 BSB, J WP (AT) No.846 of 2021 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to direct the respondents to re-fix the pension to the applicants by calculating temporary continuous service period of more than 10 years from June, 1986 to 11-12-1996 for retirement benefits and pay the arrears thereon within such time as per full court judgment/order passed in W.P.No.25260 of 2002, dated 18.09.2015 and also consider the representations of the applicants, dt.13.11.2015 and 17.11.2015 as per the A.P Ground Water Service Rules (G.O.81 & CAD (Ser.I) dated 16.01.1991 and pass such other order or orders …..” 2. Heard Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioners is as follows: a. The petitioners worked as Assistant Hydrogeologists and they are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Ground Water Service Rules. They were recruited on various dates following the rule of reservation. Though the petitioners were selected by a government constituted selection committee and against the sanctioned posts, as there was a ban on direct recruitment during 1985-86, the nomenclature of their appointment was termed as contract basis. The initial appointment of the petitioners was for a limited period and thereafter, their services have been extended from time to time. 3 BSB, J WP (AT) No.846 of 2021 b. As per the G.O.Ms.No.185, I & CAD (CAD.Ser.I) Department, dated 11.12.1996, the Director, Ground Water Department had regularized the services of the 24 candidates who were appointed on contract basis subject to certain terms. According to the petitioners, the State Government had regularized the services with prospective effect but not retrospective effect. In the said circumstances, the Geo Scientists Association had submitted representation, dated 16.04.1998 to regularize the services of the Assistant Hyderogelogists and Assistant geophysicist from the date of their initial appointment or at lease from earlier date as set out in G.O.Ms.No.185, dated 11.12.1996. The government rejected their request vide memo, dated 16.07.1998. The petitioner along with others filed O.A.No.7291 of 1998 and O.A.No.1638 of 2005 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismiss the OAs on 29.04.2005. The petitioners are seeking to refix the pension by duly considering the temporary continuous service rendered from June, 1986 to 11.12.1996, i.e., more than 10 years of service for retirement benefits and pay the arrears thereon. c. The apex Court in U.Mangapati Sharma Vs. State of A.P1 and others held that the appellant therein should be treated as a regular junior Hydrogeologist from the date of initial contractual employment. Though the petitioners belong to the same department and appointed on contract basis, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 27.03.1981 absorbing Mangapati Sharma with effect from the date of his initial appointment (i.e., 06.09.1974), whereas the services of the 1st petitioner have been regularized from the date of issuance of the G.O., i.e., 11.12.1996. The 2nd respondent forwarded the representation of Geoscientists Association, Hyderabad, dated 14.11.2005 along with his 1 Civil Appeal No.5690 of 1994, dated 12.09.2002 4 BSB, J WP (AT) No.846 of 2021 remarks to the 1st respondent on 06.02.2006 and 29.03.2006. However, the 1st respondent had not taken any action in this regard so far. The 1st petitioner had retired from service on 30.09.2013 after attaining the age of superannuation. 4. The respondents 1 & 2 filed counter contending that the petitioners cannot claim any benefit for the past service, by virtue of regularization orders, G.O.Ms.No.185, I&CAD (Department), dated 11.12.1996, and therefore, the petition is devoid of merits. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of the temporary service as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating of pension and payment of revised pension. The petitioners have submitted representations to the department authorities on 13.11.2015 and 17.11.2015, but they have not responded to their representations. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions of this Court in support of his contentions: (i) Smt. G.Madamma Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Kurnool2; (ii) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. L.B.M Krishna3; (iii) B.Prabhakar Vs. State of A.P4 7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Services submitted that the writ petition is liable to be rejected and in support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions: 2 W.P.No.34552 of 2016, dated 12.02.2021 3 W.P.No.1425 of 2019, dated 15.10.2019 4 W.P.No.36199 of 2017, dated 22.09.2021 5 BSB, J WP (AT) No.846 of 2021 (i) Ch.Surya Prakasha Rao Vs. Prl. Secretary, P.R Department and others5 (ii) Surendra Kumar Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and others6 8. Though the petition was filed for a direction to the respondents to refix the pension to the applicants, as aforesaid, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents may be directed to dispose of the representations filed by the petitioners. 9. Having regard to the above submission and in view of the order proposed to be passed, the ratios in the aforesaid decisions are not dealt with in detail. 10. Accordingly, considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the representations of the petitioners, dated 13.11.2015 and 17.11.2015 and take a decision thereon, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J Dt.07-04-2025 RAR 5 W.P.No.8894 of 2012, dt.14.02.2024 6 (2015) 14 Supreme Court Cases 382