APHC010062632013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 30642/2013 Between: V.nageswara Rao S/o Perraju and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. L V S NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V UMA DEVI 2. KOMATIREDDY VENKATANARASIMHA REDDY 3. GP FOR COOPERATION 4. A GIRIDHAR RAO The Court made the following: 2 Order:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are challenging the inaction of the respondents in not considering the initial service of the petitioners rendered in the PACS while commuting retirement benefits. In this regard, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 04.01.2012. Further direction is sought to the respondents to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioners duly taking into consideration the initial service rendered by the petitioners in the PACS. 3. This Court vide order dated 25.10.2013 directed the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 04.01.2012. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners served as paid secretaries under PACS and their services were subsequently merged in DCCBs. The issue relating to consideration of the past service of the petitioners was dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.250-251/2002 and 858/2002. The services of the petitioners were to be considered to the category to which they were recruited/absorbed afresh in the bank would have to be considered. 5. Thus, the previous pay of the employees would not be relevant so far, the respondent bank is concerned. That apart, all the paid secretaries were de-caderised and joined in DCCB as Special Category Staff Assistants and they were performing the duties of Staff Assistants. After their recruitment in the DCCBs, the pay and work are payable for the services dealt by the DCCB only. 3 6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that in compliance of the interim directions of this Court, the representation of the petitioners was considered and the retirement benefits of the petitioners were paid for the services rendered in the Bank. It is also stated that letters were addressed to the concerned PACS vide memo dated 11.02.2014 to remit the amounts payable to the petitioners for the period they worked in PACS and further reminders were also sent on 03.06.2014. It is also stated that soon after, receipt of the amount from the PACS the same will be paid to the petitioners. 7. Recording the submission of the respondents, the writ petition is disposed off in terms of the submissions of the respondents at Para No.15, leaving it open for the petitioners to take steps, if they were not paid any amounts due for their service or their respective PACS. 8. With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 02.01.2025 PNS