SHANKARA CHARY V Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by a retired District Munsif assailing the validity of the Letter No.49289/Courts Cl/99-2, dated 29-2-2000 refusing to relax the application of the relevant Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, (for short "the revised pension rules") for granting the pensionary benefits to the petitioner by virtue of the power conferred upon it under Rule 54 of the Revised Pension Rules. The background facts that led to filing of this writ petition may be noted briefly as under: The petitioner while working as District Munsif at Boath, Adilabad District, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him on certain allegations in Roc No. 98/94, Vigilance Cell, and after holding the required enquiry, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the 2nd respondent herein by its Order dated 30-10-1995 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from 31-10-1995 a.n. as a disciplinary measure. The said order of the High Court has become final in the absence of any challenge to it by the petitioner. As the matter stood thus, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15-09-1998 requesting the 2nd respondent to regularize the periods of suspension i.e., 31-8-1991 to 25-04-1993 and 03-05-1994 to 31-10-1995 for the purpose of entitling him for the pensionary benefits. The High Court on consideration of the request of the petitioner contained in his representation dated 15-09-1998 sympathetically passed an order in Roc No. 103/99/Vigilance Cell, dated 16-07-1999 regularising the above two spells of suspension treating the same as period spent on duty for the specific purpose of pensionary benefits only. Thereafterwards, the petitioner sent another representation on 12-11-1999 to the High Court wherein he requested the High Court to relax the application of relevant revised pensionary rules to make up the shortage of one year and six months in the service. Such a request was made to the High Court by the petitioner because under the Revised Pension Rules, minimum ten years service is the qualifying service for one to be eligible to pension and other terminal benefits whereas the petitioner has put in about eight years and seven months of service only including the above noted two spells of period of suspension regularized by the High Court vide its Order dated 16-07-1999 on humanitarian grounds. On consideration of the above representation of the petitioner dated 12-11-1999, the High Court wrote a letter bearing No.Roc No. 2405/98-B1, dated 29-11-1999 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh requesting the Government to consider the request of the petitioner for granting him the benefit of service weightage for one year and six months fallen short to enable him to have the pensionary benefits. The letter reads:-

(2.) On consideration of the representation of the petitioner and the above letter of the High Court, the Government issued the impugned letter bearing No.49289/Cts.Cl/ 99-2, dated 29-2-2000. It reads:-

(3.) Sri Nooty Rama Mohana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that under Article 235 of the Constitution, the control of servants and officers of subordinate judiciary vests in the High Court. The power to prescribe conditions of service is the sole preserve of the High Court and in the instant case, the High Court has exercised this power when it recommended to the Government for giving the petitioner the weightage of one year and six months vide its letter dated 29-11-1999. In view of the said specific recommendation of the High Court, the Government has no power to veto the recommendation of the High Court. The learned Counsel would maintain that since under Rule 39 of the Revised Pension Rules, the High Court is the competent authority to grant pension and since High Court has recommended for giving the petitioner the weightage of one year and six months, the Government is bound to act in accordance with the recommendation of the High Court by force of Article 235 of the Constitution read with Rule 39 of the Revised Pension Rules and it is impermissible for the Government of differ with the recommendation of the High Court under the scheme of Constitution and various judgments of the Apex Court delivered while interpreting the scope and ambit of the power of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution.