Reserved on: 12.03.2026

Pronounced on: 09.04.2026

APHC010143322007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 13045 of 2007

[3506]

K.Naveneetham and Others ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep by Its

Secretary and Others

...Respondent(s)

**********

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr.K R PRABHAKAR

Advocate(s) for Respondent(s):Mr.T VENU GOPAL

SC FOR ENDOWMENTS

(RAYALASEEMA REGION),

GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP),

Mr.ARAVALA RAMA RAO

(SC FOR APSRTC)

CORAM :SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

DATE : 9th April 2026

ORDER:

Present writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of

respondents in granting pensionary benefits to the petitioners for

the service rendered with 3

rd

respondent – Devasthanam to be

illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.680, Revenue

(Endts.III) Department, dated 15.07.1987 and consequently to

direct the respondents to pay the pensionary benefits with all

consequential benefits.

2.(a)Petitioners stated to have been initially joined in the

transport wing maintained by 3

rd

respondent Devasthanam as

2

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

drivers, conductors, mechanics, attenders etc. It is stated that

they were extended revised pay scales, granting HRA and other

increments. Initially, the employees of 3

rd

respondent

Devasthanam were not covered by pensionary benefits. By virtue

of G.O.Ms.No.201, dated 12.02.1982, the Government has issued

orders, thereby, the employees working in eight temples,

including 3

rd

respondent temple were directed to be extended the

pay scales, HRA, TA, LTC, Family Planning Incentives, Surrender

Leave, Medical Reimbursement, Promotions and Extension of

Fundamental Rules as applicable to the Government employees

and to that extent, Rules be framed under Section 31(3) of A.P.

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,

1966.

(b)Subsequently, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.680,

Revenue (Endts.III) Department, dated 15.07.1987, to even

extend the benefit of revised pension Rules, 1980, with effect

from the year 1982 to the employees of various Devasthanams,

also included the 3

rd

respondent Devasthanam. That being so,

the transport wing of 3

rd

respondent Devasthanam was proposed

to be merged with 4

th

respondent Corporation as it was felt that

the Devasthanam was not in a position to handle the operations

3

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

any further and therefore, vide G.O.Ms.No.977, dated

30.09.1989, the Government had ordered for transfer of the

transport wing of the 3

rd

respondent Devasthanam to the

4

th

respondent Corporation w.e.f. 01.10.1989.

(c)All the petitioners eventually stated to have been

transferred and got absorbed in the services of 4

th

respondent

Corporation. Petitioners have joined the services of

4

th

respondent Corporation and majority of them have attained

age of superannuation, and at that juncture, representation dated

13.06.2006 was made to the Secretary, Endowments

Department, ventilating the grievance that they were deprived of

pensionary benefits in lieu of their services being absorbed in

4

th

respondent Corporation and therefore, requested for grant of

pension for the services rendered in 3

rd

respondent

Devasthanam. As there was no response to the said

representation, petitioners chose to file present writ petition.

3.(a)Initially, the writ petition was preferred against

respondents 1 to 3, however, when the 3

rd

respondent

Devasthanam has taken objection regarding non-joinder of

necessary parties, 4

th

respondent Corporation was sought to be

impleaded vide I.A. No.1 of 2024, which eventually came to be

4

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

ordered on 19.06.2024. Both respondents 3 and 4 have filed

counters opposing the prayer in the writ petition.

(b)In sum and substance, the stand of respondents has been

that the transfer of petitioners was in pursuance to a tripartite

arrangement between 3

rd

respondent and 4

th

respondent and the

employees working in the transport department who were sought

to be transferred and in pursuance to Minutes dated 29.05.1989,

the terms and conditions of arrangement were agreed to,

therefore, any claim much less that of granting pensionary

benefits over and above what was agreed would be outside the

scope of the said arrangement.

(c)Further, it has been maintained that since petitioners were

not regular employees of Devasthanam and merely working in the

transport establishment in different capacities, as it was felt that

Devasthanam was unable to maintain the transport wing, rather

than to close down the operations preferred to transfer the same

to 4

th

respondent Corporation. After detailed deliberations with all

stakeholders specific terms and conditions were arrived at,

therefore, petitioners having accepted the same are now

precluded from making any further claims and that too, at this

belated stage and hence, urged to dismiss the writ petition.

5

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

4.Heard Sri Srinivas Bobbili, learned counsel, representing

Sri K.R.Prabhakar, learned counsel for petitioners on record,

learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents

1 to 3 and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for

4

th

respondent.

5.(a)Learned counsel for petitioners mainly contended

that as the posts held by petitioners at the time of absorption were

pensionable posts, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.680, dated

15.07.1987, which extended pension and Death cum Retirement

Gratuity (D C R G), mere absorption of their services into

4

th

respondent would not take away their right to claim such

benefits and therefore, the 3

rd

respondent is under obligation to

pay the pension for the service petitioners rendered before the

date of absorption. To buttress aforesaid arguments, learned

counsel has taken this Court to the orders passed in W.P.

No.10534 of 2002, which relate to the absorption of transport

wing of TTD with APSRTC, wherein the composite High Court

has allowed the claim of petitioners therein for extending

pensionary benefits treating their service to be that of TTD rather

than APSRTC.

6

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

(b)It is also stated that the orders in aforesaid writ petition

eventually came to be confirmed by Division Bench in W.A.

No.1318 of 2011 and as well as by Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C)

No.35732 of 2013 (C.C. No.10160/2012).

(c)In that view of the matter, it is urged that analogy adopted

by aforesaid orders equally be extended to the case of petitioners

herein in granting the pensionary benefits.

6.(a)However, opposing aforesaid submissions, both

learned Assistant Government Pleader and as well as the

standing counsel for 3

rd

respondent contended that as the

petitioners were merely employed in transport wing and not in the

regular vacancies in 3

rd

respondent Devasthanam, they cannot

claim parity and further that petitioners having chosen to accept

the terms and conditions of absorption in pursuance to minutes of

meeting dated 29.05.1989, which clearly enumerated the benefits

for which they were entitled to, they cannot now come up with

new plea beyond the agreed terms and conditions.

(b)It is further contended that the benefits of pension and

D C R G extended in terms of G.O.Ms.No.680, dated 15.07.1987,

would enure only to the regular employees of Devasthanam, who

7

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

earlier too were not entitled to such benefits, petitioners since

were not regular employees of the Devasthanam and were

merely engaged in the transport wing on different capacities,

question of extending the said benefits to them at any rate would

not arise.

(c)Lastly, it is contended that the order of composite High

Court on which much reliance has been placed was dealing with

situation that petitioners therein though opted to repatriate them

back to TTD, as at later point in time, after their absorption TTD

has extended the pensionary benefits, though such request came

to be accepted, the pensionary benefits were denied. In that

background, the composite High Court had intervened and held in

favour of petitioners therein. The said judgment really does not

lay down any specific ratio, rather dealt with peculiar facts and

circumstances of that particular case, therefore, the same would

be inapplicable to the facts of present case.

7.Perused the record and considered respective

submissions.

8.The controversy in the writ petition revolves in a narrow

compass. Petitioners were initially engaged in the transport wing

8

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

of 3

rd

respondent Devasthanam in different capacities from time to

time. Initially, an attempt was made to demerge or transfer the

transport wing of 3

rd

respondent to 4

th

respondent Corporation

way back in the year 1984 itself. Such move came to be resisted

by some of the employees who intended to continue with the

Devasthanam. G.O.Ms.No.1135, dated 16.07.1984, issued in

that regard came to be set aside by composite High Court in W.P.

No.12255 of 1984, however, on some technical flaws. Yet again,

another attempt was made to transfer the said transport wing by

issuing G.O.Ms.No.977, dated 30.09.1989. However, this time all

these stakeholders have been consulted before issuance of

aforesaid G.O.

9.As seen from the aforesaid G.O., the transfer wing of

3

rd

respondent came to be transferred to 4

th

respondent subject to

terms and conditions as agreed in the minutes of meeting dated

29.05.1989. The Minutes of meeting clearly had set out and

envisaged the terms and conditions on which the transfer has

been affected. It is opt to refer to some of the terms and

conditions necessary for present purpose.

“8. Transfer of Staff of Transport Wing: All the staff who are

under active services and borne on the rolls of the Srisaila

9

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

Devasthanam Transport Wing will be offered employment in

APSRTC in suitable cadres of the Corporation except in the

following categories:

Category No. of Employees

Record Assistants 5

Attendars 2

Gurkhas 3

Sweepers 3

Scavengers 1

Security Guards 2

NMR Cleaners 13

Total 29

The existing basic pay of the employees to be transferred

will be protected and their pay will be fixed in appropriate

scales of pay of the Corporation. The 13 NMR cleaners will

however, be considered for absorption in Corporation provided

they have completed 240 days of service as on the date of

transfer, subject to the condition that they will be absorbed at a

later date only after all surplus casual employees of the

Corporation are absorbed.

9. Claiming of Seniority: The seniority of transferred shall be

counted in the respective cadres of APSRTC from the date of

their joining in APSRTC and their past service rendered in the

Devasthanam will not be reckoned in APSRTC for the purpose

of seniority.

13. Fixation of Pay Scales of 1989 on par with APSRTC: After

discussions made with the APSRTC officials, the

Devasthanam authorities will fix up the pay of the employees

10

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

including ministerial staff on par with the Revised pay scales of

APSRTC, 1989 duly making necessary entries into the Service

Registers of the individuals.

14. Payment of Gratuity, E.P.F. & Leave Salary: The

Devasthanam authorities have agreed to make payment of

Gratuity holding and leave salary under the provisions of

Gratuity Act and A.P. Leave Rules respectively for the service

rendered with the Devasthanam to the employees to be

transferred till the date transfer. The PF Holdings to the credit

of the transferred employees standing on the date of transfer

will be transferred to APSRTC employees PF Trust under

Sec.17-B of EPF Act, 1952.”

10.Even aforesaid G.O., came to be tested before composite

High Court in W.P. No.11772 of 1990. While upholding the G.O.,

this Court had categorically held that the transfer was absolutely

legal and complied with the requirement of Section 25FF of

Industrial Disputes Act. While coming to aforesaid conclusion,

the Court has examined as to whether the conditions of service of

transfer of the transferred employees were in any way less

favourable than what they enjoyed during service in

3

rd

respondent Devasthanam.

11.Upon perusing the records, a specific finding has been

recorded that the 3

rd

respondent Devasthanam was not in a good

11

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

financial position to maintain the transport wing, therefore, a

conscious decision was made to get rid of the transport wing and

balancing and safeguarding of interest of workers, the idea of

transferring the establishment to APSRTC came to be muted.

That the salary and allowances drawn by employees in the

transport wing were fully protected on transfer to APSRTC.

12.Though one of the conditions stipulated that the past

service rendered prior to the date of transfer would get excluded

for the purpose of promotion, it was held that the same by itself

cannot be construed to be less favourable to the transferred

employees as they have been now given a window of promotions

to higher posts. Petitioners, therefore, were very much aware

about their future prospects vis-à-vis the service conditions those

would be made applicable upon transfer.

13.Condition No.13 specifically dealt with fixation of pay scales

of 1989 on par with revised pay scales of APSRTC, 1989 to bring

them on parity on the date of effective date, likewise, Condition

No.14 dealt with payment of gratuity, E.P.F. and leave salary and

it specifically contemplated that the amounts which were earlier to

held by 3

rd

respondent Devasthanam would be transferred to

APSRTC employees PF Trust in terms of 17B of Employees

12

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

Provident Fund Act, 1952. A holistic perspective of the terms and

conditions of transfer would clearly go to show that the transferred

employees were duly taken care of in all respects.

14.It is significant to notice that even the regular employees of

3

rd

respondent Devasthanam were not brought under the purview

of pensionary benefits earlier to and only by virtue of

G.O.Ms.No.680, dated 15.07.1987, such benefit has been

extended. The initial exercise of transferring transport wing has

commenced way back in the year 1984 itself. It is also to be

noticed that petitioners were extended the benefit of gratuity and

EPF while they were in service with 3

rd

respondent and such

benefits have been continued and taken forward in consonance

with the service conditions as made applicable to the regular

employees of the 4

th

respondent Corporation.

15.Once petitioners got absorbed with 4

th

respondent

Corporation, they will have to abide by the terms and conditions

of service as applicable to the said Corporation and therefore,

cannot claim any better right than the regular employees

otherwise appointed in the said Corporation.

13

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

16.The case of employees who got transferred from TTD to

APSRTC on which petitioners sought to rely on completely stand

on the different footing. It was a case where petitioners were

given option to choose either to continue with TTD or opt to

APSRTC and at the relevant point of time, neither of the

organizations had the scheme of granting pension. After

petitioners chose to migrate to APSRTC, employees working in

TTD came to be extended pensionary benefits, and in that

context, petitioners therein were yet again given option to

repatriate back to their original service. The petitioners, having

given wiliness to repatriate back and even recommended to by

the Commissioner of Endowments, nevertheless, the same were

not acted on and pensionary benefits were not extended. In such

scenario, the coordinate bench of composite High Court directed

APSRTC to permit the petitioners to repatriate back to their

original service and thereby, to extend the service conditions of

employees of TTD for the purpose of entertaining pensionary

benefits etc. and further, petitioners therein were directed to

refund any other benefits which otherwise they had already

enjoyed in lieu of aforesaid pensionary benefits.

14

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

17.In the present case, the facts stand on completely different

footing. Petitioners have agreed to the terms and conditions of

transfer, which did not contemplate any pensionary benefits rather

they were only extended with the alternate benefits of gratuity and

EPF on par with the regular employees of APSRTC. The transfer

was given effect on 01.10.1989 and petitioners have joined the

services with 4

th

respondent. Only either upon retirement or at

the verge of retirement, they chose to make a representation for

extending the pensionary benefits and that too, the tone and tenor

of representation and as well as prayer made in the writ petition

confined their claim to the period of service with 3

rd

respondent.

This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that such a request is

clearly belated and even otherwise, no statutory basis.

18.All the petitioners by now have retired from service and that

they have also taken the benefit under Employees Provident

Fund and other benefits under payment of Gratuity Act. The said

scheme is in the nature of substitute for pension and even the

4

th

respondent Corporation in terms of its statutory rules

envisages the same to its regular employees. Pension can be

claimed only when it is contemplated under relevant rules and

scheme has been put in place. Petitioners failed to demonstrate

15

CGR, J

W.P. No.13045 of 2007

any such right. Since petitioners are covered under EPF scheme,

and they failed to demonstrate that they were holding pensionary

post, the claim of pension by way of present writ petition deserves

to be rejected.

19.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is

dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if

any, shall stand closed.

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

ss