Telangana High Court
H.Srinivasulu vs The State Of Telangana on 3 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.6477 OF 2019
DATED : 03.07.2026
Between:
H.Srinivasulu
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Special
Chief Secretary, Energy Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another
... Respondents
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not grating full
pension of Rs.28,152/- to the petitioner and instead, restricting the same
to Rs.18,400/-, as illegal, improper, arbitrary and against the principles
of natural justice and also against the provisions of the Telangana
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conditions of Service of Chairman
and Members) Rules, 1999 (Telangana Adaption Order, 2016) and
W.P.No.6477 of 2019
2
consequently to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay the petitioner’s
pension at the rate of Rs.28,152/- per month as eligible under Rule 5 of
the Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conditions of
Service of Chairman and Members) Rules, 1999 or in the alternative to
provide Dearness Pay over and above the sanctioned pension amount
and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are
that the petitioner retired from the service of Income Tax Department on
30.04.2013 from the post of the Commissioner of Income Tax on
attaining the age of superannuation and post retirement, the petitioner
was sanctioned pension at the rate of Rs.36,210/- per month as per the
Sixth Pay Commission, which was later revised to Rs.94,100/- per
month as per the Seventh Pay Commission. Subsequently, the petitioner
was appointed as a Member (Finance) of Telangana State Electricity
Regulatory Commission (TSERC) under the provisions of Sections 84-
89 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and he worked as a Member for a period
of 3 years 5 months, i.e., from 03.11.2014 to 07.04.2018 and retired on
attaining the age of superannuation of 65 years. It is submitted that for
the service rendered by the petitioner as a Member of the TSERC, the
W.P.No.6477 of 2019
3
pay and allowances were sanctioned under Rule 3 of the Telangana
State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conditions of Service of
Chairman and Members) Rules, 1999 (for short ‘TSERC Rules, 1999’)
as adapted by the State of Telangana and in terms of the said Rules,
since the service of the Chairman or Members is for a period not
exceeding 5 years or attaining the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier,
the Members were entitled to receive pension as per Rule 5 of the
TSERC Rules 1999, but in respect of such service rendered, the Member
or Chairman would not be entitled to any Dearness Pay (DP) on the
pension payable to them though DP was allowed during the period of
service rendered and if a Member or Chairman has completed less than
5 years of service, the pension is to be calculated at the rate of
Rs.1,715/- or Rs.2,250/- respectively for the Member or the Chairman,
for each completed Half-Year of service and for calculating a half-year
service, a period of 3 to 6 months of service which has been put up is
taken into consideration and any period below 3 months is omitted for
calculation of pension. It is submitted that Rule 5(4)(e) of the TSERC
Rules, 1999 provides for revision of pension for Chairman or Member
of the Commission as and when pension payable to a High Court Judge
W.P.No.6477 of 2019
4
under the First Schedule of Part I Para 2 of the High Court Judges
(Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 is revised.
3. It is submitted that as per the above Rules, the petitioner has
rendered 3 years 5 months of service, i.e., seven Half-Years and
therefore, he was eligible for pension at Rs.48,262/- per Half-Year.
Under Rule 5(8) of the TSERC Rules, 1999, the pension is payable at
the end of each month at the rate of 1/12th of the pension allowed per
annum and accordingly, the revised pension of the petitioner ought to be
calculated at Rs.28,152/- per month. The petitioner has given an
illustration at para 9 of the writ affidavit. Instead, the petitioner was
granted pension at the rate of Rs.18,400/- per month restricting the total
pension receivable by the petitioner to Rs.1,12,500/- per month, i.e.,
Rs.94,100/- in respect to his past employment and Rs.18,400/- for the
service rendered as Member of respondent No.2 and encashment of 103
days of earned leave under Rule 5(6) and Rule 4(4) read with Rule 2(d)
of the A.P. ERC (Conditions of Service of Chairman and Members)
Rules, 1999 as adapted by the State of Telangana dt.12.02.2016. It is
submitted that there is no provision under TSERC Rules, 1999 linking
the past service or pension received thereunder with the service of the
W.P.No.6477 of 2019
5
Member in TSERC. It is submitted that TSERC is a quasi-judicial body
which is constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Members
and Chairman who were appointed are from different backgrounds and
are bound to have different gross pensions which is not a bar for being
selected in TSERC and therefore, the restriction being imposed by the
respondents in relation to the pension of the petitioner by clubbing the
previous pension drawn and the pension for the period of service
rendered in the TSERC as Members/Chairman is not according to the
Service conditions of Members of TSERC. Therefore, according to the
petitioner, the pension under TSERC Rules, 1999 has to be calculated
and paid for the service rendered by him as a Member of TSERC
without reference to the pension drawn by him from his previous
employment in the Income Tax Department. Therefore, it is submitted
that applying the maximum pension payable to a Judge of the High
Court for the State of Telangana and restricting the pension payable to
the petitioner thereat is illegal and arbitrary and it is further submitted
that the respondents are conveniently ignoring that the Service Rules of
the High Court Judges provide for payment of Dearness Pay which is
not being extended to the petitioner and others who are similarly placed
W.P.No.6477 of 2019
6
and therefore, the petitioner submits that the 1st and 2nd respondents are
resorting to selective application of the High Court Judges Service Rules
to suit their convenience, depriving the petitioner of his rightful pension
which is due and payable.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of
this Court to the Service conditions of TSERC, wherein it is provided
that the salary, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of
the Chairperson and Members shall be such as may be prescribed by the
State Government, provided that the salary, allowances and other terms
and conditions of service of the Members, shall not be varied to their
disadvantage after appointment. It is submitted that as per the said
Service conditions, pension under TSERC Rules, 1999 shall be payable
to a Member for life and Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 thereof prescribes the
method of calculation of pension. Rule 10 provides that in respect of any
matter for which special provision is not made by these rules, the
conditions of service of a person serving as the Chairman or a Member
of the Commission shall be governed by the rules and orders for the
time being applicable to Judges of the High Court. Therefore, according
to the petitioner, he is eligible for pension for the service rendered by
W.P.No.6477 of 2019
7
him as a Member of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory
Commission without any restriction on the maximum amount of pension
receivable or in the alternative he requests to pay Dearness Pay over and
above the sanctioned pension amount as is applicable to the High Court
Judges. He also placed reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.46, Energy (Power.III)
Department, dt.13.06.2025; G.O.Ms.No.29, Energy (Power.III)
Department, dt.07.03.2025; G.O.Ms.No.3, Energy (Power.III)
Department, dt.07.02.2020; G.O.Ms.No.2, Energy (Power.III)
Department, dt.07.02.2020 where the Government of Andhra Pradesh
has sanctioned pensions to Chairman and Members of APERC without
restricting the pension to the pension payable to the Judges of the AP
High Court. He also placed reliance upon the following judgements in
support of his contentions.
(1) Mahendra Bhushan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and
others 1
(2) Savita Devi Sharma (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and others 2
1
2002(2)WLC55 : 2002(4)WLN351 (Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur dt.13.12.2001)
2
RLW2007(4)RAJ3208 (Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur dt.09.02.2007)
W.P.No.6477 of 20198
(3) M. Rama Krishna and another Vs. The Government of
Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Law (LA&JSC.F)
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others3
(4) Union of India Vs. K.B. Khare and others 4
(5) N.K. Sud and another Vs. State of Haryana and another5
(6) Justice P. Venugopal Vs. Unionof India (UOI) and others 6
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I has relied upon the
averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the Hon’ble
Governor is the competent authority under Rule 5(6), Rule 4(2)(d) read
with Rule 4(4) of the TSERC (Conditions of Service of Chairman and
Members) Rules, 1999 for sanction of pension and the service
conditions of the Chairman and Members refer to the High Court Judges
Rules for the purpose of revision of pension and therefore, the overall
ceiling specified to the High Court Judges also applies to the Chairman
3
W.P.Nos.3502 of 2000 and 4990 of 2003 dt.19.12.2008 of A.P. High Court at Hyderabad
4
1994 Supp (3) SCC 502
5
CWP-1539-2023 dt. 09.01.2026 of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
6
AIR 2003 SC 3887 : 2003 INSC 439
7
MANU/HP/1376/2025 : 2025:HHC:23845
W.P.No.6477 of 2019
9
and Members of TSERC and therefore, the maximum ceiling applicable
to a High Court Judge, i.e., Rs.1,12,500/- per month is applied to the
petitioner also and the pension was sanctioned accordingly. He therefore
prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that the issue before this Court is whether while
calculating the pension payable to the petitioner as a Member of
TSERC, it can be restricted to the maximum pension payable to a High
Court Judge. The petitioner is governed by the Andhra Pradesh
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conditions of Service of Chairman
and Members) Rules, 1999 which have been subsequently adapted by
the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.4, Energy (HR.A1)
Department, dt.12.02.2016. Admittedly, the petitioner was drawing
pension as a retired member of the Income Tax Department and as per
the service rendered by him in TSERC, he was eligible for the pension
of Rs.28,152/- per month. However, on the ground that the maximum
pension being drawn by a High Court is Rs.1,12,500/-, his pension as
Member of TSERC is restricted to Rs.18,400/- per month. As submitted
by the petitioner, the Chairman is selected from a person who has been a
W.P.No.6477 of 2019
10
High Court Judge and Members can be from various categories which
can be both Government service or other than Government service. It is
therefore a different and a distinguished engagement of service and is
not in continuation of earlier service rendered by such person. The
respondents are relying upon G.O.Ms.No.4 dt.12.02.2016 to submit that
the service conditions of a High Court Judge are applicable to the
Chairman or Members of the Commission in respect of any matter for
which special provision is not made. Therefore, the rules referred to are
Rule 5(3), Rule 5(4) and Rule 10 which are reproduced for ready
reference.
“5. Pension:
3. The Pension under these rules shall be payable to a
Member for life.
4. The annual pension payable to a Member of the
Commission on his relinquishing charges shall be as
follows:
a. In the case of Chairman Rs.2,250/- per Half-year
of service subject to a maximum of Rs.22,500/-
per year if he has completed 5 years of service.
b. In case of Member other than Chairman
Rs.1,715/- per Half-year of service subject to a
W.P.No.6477 of 201911
maximum of Rs.17,150/- per year if he has
completed 5 years of service.
c. If a Member or Chairman has completed less
than 5 years of service the pension is to be
calculated at the rate of Rs.1,715/- or Rs.2,250/-
respectively for each completed Half-year of
service. For calculating a Half-year service, a
period of 3 to 6 months is to be taken as one
Half-year and below 3 months is to be omitted
for calculation of pension.
d. In the case of a person who has rendered service
as a Member and also Chairman and if the total
period of service is more than one year he shall
be entitled for payment of pension in the post last
held by him before relinquishing charge.
e. As and when pension payable to a High Court
Judge under the first Schedule of Part 1 of rule
(para) 2 of the High Court Judges (Conditions of
Service) Act 1954 is revised, corresponding Half-
yearly service pension revision should be made
for Chairman & Members of the Commission are
eligible for the corresponding half-yearly service
pension.
10. Application of Rules of High Court Judge:
In respect of any matter for which special provision is not made
by these rules the conditions of service of a person serving as
the Chairman or a Member of the Commission shall be
W.P.No.6477 of 201912
governed by the rules and orders for the time being applicable
to Judges of the High Court.”
However, this Court finds that the requirements for the post of Chairman
and Member are different and distinct, but once appointed, the rules
relating to leaves and pension are common to all. Rule 5(3) deals with
pension which is payable to a Member for life and Rule 5(4) deals with
annual pension payable to a Member of the Commission on his
relinquishing charges and Clause (e) thereof provides for revision of
pension as and when the pension payable to a High Court Judge is
revised. Rule 10 also provides that in respect of any matter for which
special provision is not made, the rules and orders for the time being
applicable to the Judges of the High Court shall be applicable to the
Chairman as well as the Member. Therefore, it can be seen that there is
no specific rule restricting the pension of the Chairman or Members of
the Commission to the maximum pension payable to a High Court
Judge. Further, from the documents filed by the petitioner on
10.03.2026, it is noticed that in respect of a Chairman and Members of
APERC who have retired from service, there has been no restriction on
the pension payable to them on account of APERC. Further, in the
decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
W.P.No.6477 of 201913
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that restriction on the maximum
pension receivable can only be if it is a case of re-employment and not
where the employment is in no way connected with the earlier service.
In the case of Union of India Vs. K.B. Khare and others (4 supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is a distinction between re-
employment and linking of past retired service where subsequent service
is a tenure based service. In view of the same, this Court is of the
opinion that restriction placed by the respondents on the pension payable
to the petitioner on account of his retirement as Member of TSERC is
unsustainable.
7. The respondents are therefore directed to grant full pension of
Rs.28,152/- per month to the petitioner and not to restrict the same to
Rs.18,400/- per month and pay the difference amount to the petitioner
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereon from the date of his
retirement as Member of TSERC till the date of payment within a period
of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
W.P.No.6477 of 2019
14
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 03.07.2026
Svv
