IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUAI^p TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18970 OF 2012 Between: B.Valleswari Rani, W/o P. Nageswara Rao, Age 59 Years, Occ; Retired Superintendent Acharya Nagarjuna Unvicwrsity, R/o Door No. 13-37 Main Road, Nuzud, Krishna District.’ ...Petitioner AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. Acharya Nagarjuna University, Rep, by It's Registrar, Guntur District Guntur. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue writ order praying that in may or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring inaction on the part of the respondents in fixing petitioners pensionary benefits on the basis of actual emoluments drawn during last 10 months average preceding superannuation of the Constitution of India and consequently pensionary benefits based as arbitrary, illegal and voilative of Articles 14 & 21 and contrary to the A.P. Revised Pension Rules 1980 direct the respondents to recalculate on average emoluments actually drawn during last 10 months preceding retirement and pay difference of Gratuity, commuted pension and revised pension arrears with interest @ 18% pa. from the date of retirement till . actual payment. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. A V S LAXMI Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI M MURALI LINCOLN SC FOR ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY The Court made the following order: APHC010384192012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18970/2012 Between: B.valleswari Rani. ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AVS LAXMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2.SRINIVAS MANTHA 3.M MURALI LINCOLN(STANDING COUNSEL FOR ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY) The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. The petitioner is claiming a direction to fix her pensionary benefits based on the emolupients drawn during the last ten months preceding her retirement and to pay the difference in 2. 2 gratuity, commuted pension, and revised pension together with interest at 18% per annum. arrears. The petitioner joined Respondent No. 2-University on 12.05.1978 as a Typist and was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. While the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant, she was further promoted to the post of Superintendent on a temporary basis, as per the proceedings dated 01.04.2009. The petitioner’s pay was fixed immediately after her promotion to the post of Superintendent, and she continued to draw the pay applicable to the post of 3. Superintendent until her retirement on 30.06.2011. However, the respondents have disbursed the pension, considering the Senior Assistant and commuted petitioner’s service as pensionary benefits based on her service in the cadre of Senior Assistant The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner served for a period of 27 months as a Superintendent before attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner was also paid the revised wages corresponding to the pay scale of Superintendent during her service. However, the respondents have not considered her service as Superintendent when 4. • ^ 3 calculating her pensionary benefits. The proceedings dated 24.09.2011 state that the petitioner’s substantive cadre of Senior Assistant was considered for the computation of her pensionary retirement benefits. It is submitted that the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension 5. Rules, 1980 entitle the petitioner to claim pension based on the last drawn pay and the calculation of retirement benefits based on the last pay. Rule 13, which relates to the commencement of qualifying service, reads as follows: 13. Commencement of qualifying service:- Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity: Provided that ~ (a) in the case of a Government servant in a Class-IV service or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent pensionable post prior to the 17th November, 1960, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen years shall not count for any purpose. and (b) in the case of a Government servant not covered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity. 4 The petitioner was serving as a Superintendent and officiated in the role of Superintendent until she attained the age of superannuation. 6. 7. There is no counter filed in this matter. The writ petitionwas filed in the year 2012. The learned Government Pleader for Higher Education is representing the matter on behalf of Respondent No. 2-University. This Court noted that there was no representation for Respondent No.2 on 26.11.2024, 10.12.2024, and 21.12.2024. As a result, the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to serve fresh personal notice to Respondent but there was still no No.2. The notice was served representation. On 26.12.2024, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education informed the Court that a new Standing Counsel had been appointed for Respondent No.2, and a fresh memo of appearance would be filed shortly by the Standing Counsel. No such memo appears to have been filed. The presence of the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education is recorded. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, it is noted that the petitioner served as Superintendent w 5 from 01.04.2009 until her superannuation s 30.06.2011, during which time she drew the salary attached to the post of Superintendent. The proceedings dated 01.04.2009 indicate that the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Superintendent was purely on a temporary basis, subject to reversion without further notice and when the post was to be filled as per rules. However, the petitioner continued in the post until she reached the age of i superatinuation, drawing the salary attached to the post of Superintendent. It is also stated in the affidavit that two other Superintendents, by the names Sri P. Srinivasa Rao and Sri Mastan Rao, who were juniors to the petitioner and were required to serve as Superintendents, were granted pensionary benefits based on the last drawn pay of Superintendent. 9. Considering the above, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition by directing Respondent No.2 to consider the pay scale of Superintendent, which was last drawn by the petitioner, for the computation of her retirement benefits. The respondents are also directed to pay the difference in gratuity, commuted pension, and revised pension within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner shall submit a representation in this regard, and the respondents shall pass 6 necessary orders, duly re-calculating the pension, within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to 10. costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of 11. this order. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above, Witness the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur on this Monday, The Twenty Fourth Day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO assistant REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad 1. The Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur, District Guntur. 2. One CC to M/s. A V S Laxmi Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Higher Education, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri. S Murali Lincoln SC for Acharya Nagarjuna University [OPUC] 5. 6. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 « , 9 f • r I t f'• ’ ORDER WP.No.18970 of 2012 g 01 APR 2(B5 Current Section p». ALLOWING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS