Telangana High Court
G. Venkatamma vs The State Of Telangana on 19 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.36705 of 2018
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in failing to rectify the erroneous fixation of service pension at Rs.36,642/- instead of Rs.39,455/-, and seeking a direction to the respondents to fix the service pension at Rs.39,455/- with all consequential benefits, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri K. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director vide proceedings dated 19.08.2015 in an existing vacancy, after following due the procedure for effecting promotions that included conducting a DPC and approving her name in the DPC. Consequently, her pay was fixed at Rs.78,910/- in the scale of pay of Rs.37,100-91,450 vide proceedings dated 09.10.2015. While so, the petitioner had retired from service on 31.08.2015 and her pension proposals were accordingly submitted by the office of respondent No.2 as per the procedure in vogue, wherein, 2 PK, J W.P.No.36705 of 2018 her service pension was proposed as Rs.39,455/-, among other things. However, despite the same, on receiving the pension proposals from respondent No.2, respondent No.3, in a unilateral and erroneous manner, fixed her service pension as Rs.36,642/- as against the proposed amount of Rs.39,455/- vide proceedings in letter dated 02.03.2016, by calculating her pension on the basis of the average emoluments, computed at Rs.73,282/- instead of her last drawn pay at Rs.78,910/-. Further, in the remarks column of the said proceedings, it was stated, "It may be stated whether she was promoted against clear vacancy or regular vacancy. If so, the same may be noted in SB under proper attestation and sent to this office for revision. At present, AE is taken for PBS."
4. It was further submitted that a reply was sent to respondent No.3 by respondent No.2, stating that promotion of the officer was in a leave vacancy. However, the said information is ex facie incorrect, as the petitioner's promotion was in an existing vacancy, which was also clearly stated in the proceedings dated 19.08.2015. However, it appears that only her posting on promotion was in a leave vacancy. As such, respondent No.2 ought to have clarified to respondent No.3 that her promotion was against an existing vacancy only. It was further submitted that the petitioner's pay that was fixed on her 3 PK, J W.P.No.36705 of 2018 promotion at an available stage in the scale of pay attached to the post of Assistant Director, by the competent authority remained unaltered. Thus, as per the rules in force, the service pension has to be computed on the basis of last pay drawn and not on the basis of average emoluments. Therefore, the action of the respondents in fixing the petitioner's service pension at Rs.36,642/- instead of Rs.39,455/- is not only erroneous, but also the one that causes an irreparable financial loss to the petitioner, as such, it is liable to be rectified by the respondent by issuing necessary orders. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to respondent No.2 on 12.05.2017, i.e., immediately after respondent No.2 sent the letter dated 13.04.2017 to respondent No.3, requesting for re-fixation of basic service pension. However, no action has been taken thereon so far. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner has been promoted as Assistant Director on 19.08.2015 and retired on 31.08.2015, on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner submitted her pension proposals to the office of respondent No.2 on 11.08.2015, 4 PK, J W.P.No.36705 of 2018 duly proposing her service pension as Rs.39,455/-, by taking her last drawn pay at Rs.78,910/-. Thereafter, the proposals were forwarded to respondent No.3 vide proceedings in letter No.3112/A1/Pen/2015 dated 20.11.2015, after which, respondent No.3, vide letter Lr.No.PAG(A&E)/AP/P15/IV/V-595/SP697/2016-01/10797 dated 23.01.2016, communicated a copy of the retirement benefits in respect of the petitioner and asked to clarify whether the officer has been promoted against a clear vacancy or regular vacancy, and requested to note the same in the Service Register under proper attestation. As the average emoluments were taken into consideration for calculation of pensionary benefits, her service pension was fixed at Rs.36,642/- against the proposed amount of Rs.39,455/-. Further, as per the note approval of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner has been promoted as Assistant Director and posted in the office of respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 19.08.2015, in a leave vacancy. Smt. D. Lalitha Kumari and Smt. Ch. Anuradha were working as Assistant Directors as against the two sanctioned posts of Assistant Directors in the office of respondent No.2. The aforesaid Smt. Ch. Anuradha was on leave from 20.07.2015 to 19.01.2016, as on the date of promotion of the petitioner.
5
PK, J W.P.No.36705 of 2018
6. It was further submitted that the petitioner's promotion was against a leave vacancy vide proceedings dated 19.08.2015, which was also noted in the Service Register (revised promotion entry) under proper attestation. Further, in the promotion proceedings, it was wrongly mentioned as existing vacancy, instead of mentioning leave vacancy, and mere issuance of proceedings mentioning existing vacancy, does not confer any right to claim the benefits of existing vacancy when it is a clear fact that the petitioner was promoted in a leave vacancy. It was further submitted that the service pension of employees is computed on the basis of their last pay drawn. In the case of the petitioner, as her promotion was in a leave vacancy, respondent No.3 has calculated the pension of the basis of the average emoluments and not on last pay drawn basis, and fixed the pension at Rs.36,642/- as against the proposed amount of Rs.39,455/-. It was further submitted that along with the petitioner's representation dated 12.07.2017, a copy of the proceedings dated 19.08.2015 was enclosed, wherein, it was shown as existing vacancy, but on verification of service register of the individual, it was noticed that the promotion entry was noted as existing vacancy by self- attestation of the retired officer. Therefore, the petitioner's promotion as Assistant Director was duly counted to be in a leave vacancy, 6 PK, J W.P.No.36705 of 2018 which was also taken note of by respondent No.3 authorities while fixing her pension at Rs.36,642/-. Hence, re-fixation of basic service pension was not done by the Accountant General authorities. Therefore, it was submitted that there are no merits in the present case, and thus, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds that the main grievance of the petitioner pertains to the computation of her basic service pension based on her average emoluments instead of her last drawn pay. According to the petitioner, she was promoted to the post of Assistant Director vide proceedings dated 19.08.2015, in an existing vacancy and her last drawn pay in the promoted post was Rs.78,910/-, based on which, the service pension was proposed at Rs.39,455/-. However, the said proposed pension was reduced to Rs.36,642/- by respondent No.3, on the premise that she was promoted in a leave vacancy. Further, admittedly, the petitioner has already submitted a detailed representation dated 12.05.2017, requesting re-fixation of her basic service pension, which is still pending consideration before respondent No.2.
7
PK, J W.P.No.36705 of 2018
8. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct respondent No.2 is to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.05.2017 and take a decision with regard to the eligibility/entitlement of the petitioner for re-fixation of her basic service pension at Rs.39,455/-, duly passing appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner.
9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 19.06.2025.
GSP