Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By ... on 8 May, 2026

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH                          [3506]
                         AT AMARAVATI

                  WRIT PETITION NO.1169 OF 2002
Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural                                  ...Petitioner
University Retired Teachers'
Association, Hyderabad, rep. by its
General Secretary.
     Vs.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its                ...Respondents
Principal Secretary to Government, Finance &
Planning (FW-Pension 1) Department & Ors.
                                 **********
Advocate for Petitioner:              Sri M.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior
                                      Counsel, for Sri Manoj Kumar
                                      Bethapudi, learned counsel.
Advocate for respondents 1 & 2 : Learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for
                                 learned Government Pleader for
                                 Higher Education.
              rd
Advocate for 3 respondent:
                                 Ms.S.Pranathi, learned Standing
                                 Counsel for ANGRAU

           CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
           DATE   : 08th May, 2026
ORDER:

Present writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

"....to issue an order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not conferring the benefits a maximum of 40 of commutation of pension w.e.f. 01.01.1996 instead of 01.04.1999 to the members of the petitioner's Association, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the 2 CGR, J.

Constitution of India and further, declare that the members of the petitioner's Association are entitled for the benefit of gratuity upto a maximum of Rs 3.5 lakhs w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and 40 commutation of pension w.e.f. 01.01.1996, instead of 01.04.1999 the date from which the UGC scales have implemented by the A.P. State Government, also with all consequential benefits...."

2. (a) Writ Petition has been instituted by registered Association consisting of members who retired from University services, in particular, teaching faculty. It is claimed that about 170 members of the Association, who retired from University service after 01.01.1996, are affected on account of the impugned action of the respondents in not extending the benefits of enhancement of retirement gratuity upto Rs.3,50,000/- and also commutation of 40% value of pension with effect from 01.01.1996 in accordance with the Revised UGC Pay Scales, 1996.

(b) It is claimed that petitioner Association members were being extended UGC Scales and subjected to Pay Revision of UGC Scales from time to time. However, they are governed by A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, on par with State Government employees. The Government of India had undertaken revision of pay scales in the year 1996 and accordingly, has come up with revised pay scales for the period 1996 - 2006. The said pay scales, thereafter, have been adopted by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.208, Higher Education 3 CGR, J.

(UE.II.I) Department, dated 29.06.1999. In terms of aforesaid G.O., the revised pay scales were extended even to the employees of 3rd respondent University and given effect from 01.01.1996.

(c) Later, by G.O.Ms.No.246, Higher Education (UE.II.I) Department, dated 31.08.1999, the State Government had extended the benefit of dearness allowance, house rent allowance, and city compensatory allowance as recommended for the Central Government employees, in pursuance to the revised pay scales, and the same was also given effect from 01.01.1996. That being so, with respect to the State Government employees, the State had undertaken revision of pay scales in the year 1999. The Pay Revision Commission stated to have made certain recommendations and in pursuance to the same, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.158, Finance & Planning (FW.Pen.I) Department, dated 16.09.1999, enhancing the limit of commutation of pension to 40% of the pension sanctioned, which, however, was to come into force with effect from 01.04.1999. Similarly, vide G.O.Ms.No.157, Finance & Planning (FW.Pen.I) Department, dated 16.09.1999, the Government had enhanced the maximum limit of retirement gratuity from Rs.1,75,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- for the purpose of calculating retirement gratuity as part of emoluments, as defined in Rule 31 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, and the same were given effect from 01.01.1999.

CGR, J.

(d) The aforesaid determination of enhancement of retirement gratuity and 40% of commutation value, as made applicable to State Government employees with effect from 01.04.1999, was equally made applicable to the members of petitioner Association, who otherwise were to be extended with effect from 01.01.1996 and that too in terms of UGC Pay Scales as adopted by the State Government.

(e) Petitioner Association stated to have made representation, dated 11.12.2000, to the 1st respondent, pointing out aforesaid anomaly, besides raising certain other issues. Yet, another representation stated to have been made on 23.02.2001 to the anomaly committee constituted to look into the grievances of the stakeholders. One such representation of Federation of University Retired Teachers Association, in turn, stated to have been referred by the anomalies committee to the Department of Finance and Planning (Pension), Government of Andhra Pradesh, to look into the grievances. Despite the same, it is stated that the State Government had neither considered the same in proper perspective nor bestowed any attention on the grievance ventilated. Constrained by the same, petitioner Association preferred present writ petition.

3. 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the Government Orders, vide G.O.Ms.No.208, Higher Education Department, dated 29.06.1999, and G.O.Ms.No.246, dated 5 CGR, J.

31.08.1999, though extended UGC Scales, 1996 to the teachers of 3rd respondent University, yet, Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.157 and G.O.No.158, even dated 16.09.1999, specifying the upper limit of retirement gratuity to be a maximum of Rs.2,50,000/- and commutation of pension from one third to 40% of pension in respect of State pensioners with effect from 01.04.1999, which was also given effect to the teachers of 3rd respondent University and other Universities, therefore, as the State was required to bear the entire burden of pension, though the pay scales and other aspects governing these teachers would be met by the Government of India to 80% and the remaining by the State Government, justification was sought to be done accordingly.

4. Even 3rd respondent University filed counter-affidavit in line with the stand taken by 1st respondent. It is stated that the 3rd respondent University has merely followed and implemented the Government Orders as referred to above.

5. Heard Sri M.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for 1st respondent and Ms.S.Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent University.

CGR, J.

6. (a) Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner Association, mainly contended that as for all practical purposes, the members of petitioner Association, being retired teachers and pensioners, who earlier worked with 3rd respondent University were extended UGC scales, are entitled to be extended the Revised Pay Scales of 1996, which include the enhancement of retirement gratuity up to Rs.3,50,000/-, besides 40% commutation value of pension with effect from 01.01.1996. Inasmuch as the State Government by G.O.Ms.No.208, dated 29.06.1999, and G.O.Ms.No.246, dated 31.08.1999, indeed has adopted and extended the Revision of Pay Scales of 1996 with effect from 01.01.1996 to all the teaching staff, in particular, the 3rd respondent University, it is incumbent upon the Government to extend aforesaid benefits.

(b) He further contended that due to efflux of time, probably the first part of prayer, i.e., regarding enhancement of retirement gratuity alone, would survive, and the latter part may not survive for consideration.

(c) In support of the aforesaid submissions, he sought to rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Retired College Teachers Association, AP, Hyderabad v. Government of A.P. rep. by 7 CGR, J.

its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning (FW.Pen.I) Department, A.P1.

7. (a) Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing for 1st respondent and Ms. S. Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent University, opposing the aforesaid submissions, contended that since the State had to bear the burden of pension in terms of A. P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the State had taken a decision to restrict the enhancement of retirement gratuity upto Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,75,000/- for those who retired before 31.12.1998 and 01.01.1999 respectively and also the commutation of pension upto 40% with effect from 01.04.1999, which cannot be found fault with.

(b) Learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent University further contended that the State, while deciding to adopt or implement UGC Revised Pay Scales, 1996, is well within its power to specify a specific date of its applicability, and also the components of coverage and applicability and the pension, gratuity and other service related benefits are always subject to the specifiability in terms of Revised Pay Scales,1980. She had referred to G.O.Ms.No.14, Higher Education (UE.II) Department, dated 20.02.2010, stated to have been issued by 1 Common Judgment, dt.17.02.2012, in W.A.No.1622 of 2004 & W.A.No.772 of 2005. (APHC) 8 CGR, J.

the State Government, which adopted UGC Revised Pay Scales, 2006, to the staff of Universities and Colleges, given effect from 01.01.2006, which clearly envisage that pension, gratuity, and other service related benefits shall be extended on par with State Government employees, but not in terms of the UGC Pay Scales as stipulated.

(c) Further, it is also contended by learned Standing Counsel that the judgment on which petitioner has relied on would have no application to the issues raised in the present writ petition, as it was only considering the claim of pensioners prior to 01.01.1996, but not the period post thereof.

8. I have gone through the documents on record and also considered respective submissions of both the learned counsels on either side.

9. It is not in dispute that the members of petitioner Association have retired as teaching faculty in 3rd respondent University. They have been extended UGC Pay Scales during their service and even post-retirement are paid the pensionary benefits in terms thereof. Once the 3rd respondent University comes under the purview of UGC Pay Scales, the Central Government would bear 80% of the salary and other allowances and whereas the State Government would bear the remaining 20%. However, insofar as pension is concerned, it is for the State Government 9 CGR, J.

to bear entire of it. The employees of 3rd respondent University, therefore, would be governed by the provisions of the A. P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.

10. The revision of pay scales of Central Government employees happens once in 10 years, and whereas, the State Government undertakes once in 5 years for its employees. One such revision took place in the year 1996 for the block period 1996 - 2006 for Central Government employees. Likewise, the State Government had also undertaken revision of pay scales in the year 1999 for block period of 5 years. The 1996 Pay Revision Commission had recommended the retirement gratuity to be pegged at Rs.3,50,000/- maximum and commutation of pension was permitted upto 40% of the pension against the existing limit of one third.

11. Aforesaid recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission came to be accepted by Central Government and accordingly, it had issued necessary orders for effecting appropriate modifications in Rules regarding pension, DCRG and Family Pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Commutation of Pension under CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, vide proceedings and orders, dated 27.10.1997 and 17.12.1998. Meaning thereby the Central Government intended that there should be corresponding amendments carried out to the 10 CGR, J.

respective Rules, in particular, pension rules and commutation of pension rules as applicable to Central Government employees, as mentioned above. It is not known whether any of such amendments have been affected in line with and even petitioner Association also has not placed any material before this Court to presume the same.

12. Even the State Government had also appointed a five-member committee to examine and make in-depth study with regard to implementation of aforesaid pay scales to the teaching staff of Universities and Colleges within the State.

13. Based on the report of the said Committee, the State Government had decided to extend revised UGC pay scales to the teachers of Universities, including 3rd respondent University herein. Accordingly, vide G.O.Ms.No.208, dated 29.06.1999, it had issued A.P. Revised UGC Scales of Pay, 1996. The said pay scales were given effect from 01.01.1996. Subsequently, the State Government had also issued G.O.Ms.No.246, dated 31.08.1999, extending the benefit of allowances such as dearness allowance, house rent allowance and city compensatory allowance to all teaching staff to be in consonance with the Government of India employees, and as well as G.O.Ms.No.208, dated 29.06.1999.

CGR, J.

14. A reading of aforesaid G.Os. would go to show that the Government had extended Revised UGC Scales of Pay to all the teaching staff of various Universities. But, conspicuously, neither of these Orders in any way deal with nor refer to the aspect of extending pensionary benefits, in particular, enhancement of retirement gratuity upto Rs.3,50,000/- or 40% commutation value of pension with effect from 01.01.1996, as envisaged in Revised UGC Scales of Pay.

15. Be that as it may, mere such absence cannot be inferred that the State did not intend to extend aforesaid benefits to the retired pensioners. Though, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent University has referred to G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 20.02.2010, which had in fact extended A. P. UGC Scales of Pay 2006 for limited purpose of salaries, and continued the pension, gratuity and other service-related benefits on par with the State Government employees, no such specific order has been placed before this Court to construe that the Government intended to apply the pension, gratuity and other service- related benefits to the retired or existing employees of 3rd respondent University on par with the State Government employees. The right to claim pension or gratuity should emanate from a specific statutory rule and cannot be by mere inference. It is an undeniable fact that members of petitioner Association are governed by the A.P. Revised Pension 12 CGR, J.

Rules, 1980. Therefore, it is for the State Government to specifically express its view regarding aforesaid aspect.

16. Further, even G.O.Ms. No.157 and G.O.Ms.No.158, even dated 16.09.1999, were issued only in the context of State Government employees alone, and they do not in any way deal with the University employees who otherwise were governed by the UGC pay scales. Though the counter-affidavits of respondents tried to take stand that aforesaid GOs were made applicable to even the retired teachers of the Universities, and as well as 3rd respondent University, nothing that sort can be read into those G.Os. The issue, in the opinion of this Court, has not been specifically dealt with or addressed by the Government despite petitioner Association making representations.

17. Though learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent University emphasizes that grant of pension being in the exclusive domain of State Government and governed by the provisions of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the State can always uniformly make it applicable to all its employees and even to the teaching staff of Universities, this Court is of the opinion that inasmuch as State has not spelt out specifically denying the benefit of enhancement of retirement benefit as postulated in UGC revised pay scales, it is always open to the State Government to look into the said aspect.

CGR, J.

18. Though learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to rely on the common judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1622 of 2004 and 772 of 2005, referred supra, to buttress that the issue is covered, on a close analysis of the said judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the issues those fell for consideration before the Division Bench were completely different, except being that the same also concerned with the extension of Revised UGC Pay Scales to the pensioners retired before 01.01.1996.

19. Be that as it may, considering the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the present writ petition only survives to the extent of non-conferment of benefit of enhancement of retirement gratuity, which has been pegged upto maximum of Rs.3,50,000/-, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner Association, dated 02.08.2001, to the above extent, having regard to the adoption of UGC Pay Scales of 1996 in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.208, dated 29.06.1999 and accordingly pass appropriate speaking orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

CGR, J.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN cs