
Initial appt date must be considered for pension: HC
The court recognised their temporary service from 2002 to 2006 as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by Dr C Narmada and 51 other former contract medical officers who had served in sanctioned posts in the state's Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic departments on a consolidated pay basis.
The petitioners challenged the govt's failure to consider their contractual service under the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, for pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits.
They contended that similar benefits had been extended in comparable cases, citing relevant precedents and the Supreme Court's decision in Prem Singh vs state of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners also relied on a previous ruling by the high court in their support.
Notably, the govt's counsel did not object to the petitioners' reliance on the high court's earlier ruling.
Justice Nanda, referring to multiple judgments from the Supreme Court and high courts, held that temporary and contractual service must be counted as qualifying service under Rules 13 and 14 of the Pension Rules.
She also underscored constitutional protections under Articles 14, 16, 21, 39(d), 43, and 300-A, affirming that pension constitutes a property right and cannot be denied arbitrarily.
Allowing the writ petition, the court directed the state govt to process and issue pension payment orders within three weeks of receiving the order. The court specifically instructed that the initial date of appointment be used as the basis for computing pension entitlement.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
19 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘No arrest, only lawful document verification': Odisha Advocate General tells Calcutta HC on migrant detentions
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday asked the Advocate General of Odisha to submit an affidavit on the alleged detention of Bengali-speaking migrant workers who had travelled to the state for work. The division bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra asked, 'Apprise us whether they were arrested, interrogated, or detained.' The Advocate General of Odisha, appearing virtually, denied any arrest. According to the petitioners' counsel, those detained were allegedly released only after the court intervened. Raghunath Chakraborty, appearing for the petitioners, said, 'The detention was illegal and thus compensation should be provided. Those who have been released have stated that many others like them remain in custody — detained illegally and not produced before a magistrate.' 'There have been no arrests. As per the Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 3, when the citizenship of suspected persons is in doubt, we investigate for lawful verification of documents. People from all over the country come to work here, and lawfully, on suspicion, their documents are verified,' the Odisha Advocate General submitted. Senior counsel Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the petitioners, argued, 'There must be some grounds. Only on suspicion, they cannot declare someone a foreigner.' After hearing all parties, the court directed the Odisha government to submit its affidavit in opposition by August 20. The petitioners were directed to file replies by August 27, and the matter will be taken up on August 29. The court also directed Advocate General Ashok Kumar Acharya to be present in person for the next hearing. The court is hearing two habeas corpus petitions filed earlier this month against Odisha Police, accusing it of illegally detaining Bengali-speaking migrant workers. One of the petitions was filed by Nasima Mondal, mother of Rakhibul Islam Mondal who is a resident of Hariharpara in Murshidabad and was allegedly detained in Odisha's Jagatsinghpur district. She moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, claiming her son was held for more than 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate in violation of his fundamental rights. According to her petition, police allegedly picked up Rakhibul during an identity verification drive on June 25 and 'ignored valid documents' in his possession — including Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration card. The petitioner alleged he was targeted for speaking Bengali and suspected of being Bangladeshi, without any proper identity checks. Another petition was filed by Rajjak Sheikh, also from Hariharpara, seeking the release of his son, Sainur Islam. He claimed Jagatsinghpur police detained his son during a similar identity verification drive on June 30.
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
SC refuses to hear plea challenging gag order in Dharamsthala case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to hear a petition challenging a sweeping gag order that restrained media houses from reporting on matters related to the brother of Dharamadhikari D Veerendra Heggade of Dharamsthala in Karnataka. The gag order pertained to reports on alleged murder of women in Dharmasthala in the state's Dakshina Kannada district. The plea, filed against an ex parte interim order of a local court, questioned the legality of the directive which directed as many as 390 media houses to remove nearly 9,000 links and stories related to the Dharamsthala burial case. A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi asked the petitioner as to why the high court had not been approached. You go the high court first, the CJI said. The gag order was reportedly passed in a defamation suit filed by Harshendra Kumar, Secretary of Sri Manjunathaswamy Temple institutions, who highlighted the spread of allegedly false and defamatory content online, despite there being no specific allegations against him or the temple authorities in any FIR. Recently, Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara asserted that a thorough investigation must precede any conclusions regarding the alleged murder of women in Dharmasthala. Prior to this, the state government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the allegations. The plea in the top court was filed by YouTube channel Third Eye against a Bengaluru court order restraining the publication of any defamatory content against Harshendra Kumar D, brother of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade, in relation to the Dharmasthala temple burial case.

The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court asks YouTube channel to first approach High Court in ‘Dharmasthala burials' case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) declined to hear a challenge to an 'ex-parte' and 'sweeping gag order' passed by a Bengaluru civil court restraining media outlets from publishing any defamatory material against Harshendra Kumar D., brother of Dharmasthala pattadhikari D. Veerendra Heggade, in connection with the alleged burials in the temple town. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, when the petition was mentioned orally for an early listing, advised advocate A. Velan, appearing for the YouTube channel, Third Eye, to first approach the Karnataka High Court. Also Read | Dharmasthala burials: Ashok says temple should not be tarnished while targeting individuals The petition had sought an interim stay of the civil court order of July 18, which had also directed the media to take down any content already published in connection with the issue. It argued that the civil court 'effectively imposed a sweeping gag order and mandatory content deletion on hundreds of media entities nationwide'. 'This order, secured through a calculated abuse of judicial process and material misrepresentation by the plaintiffs, directly obstructs a high-level State criminal investigation into allegations of mass burials and serious crimes linked to the influential Dharmasthala temple. It is a frontal assault on the freedom of speech and the Press (Article 19(1)(a)) and the foundational principles of natural justice and due process (Article 21),' the petition said. The Karnataka government has already constituted a Special Investigation Team to enquire into the allegations.