Single judge order disposing a writ petition regarding deletion of pensioners. Bench disposed of the petition by following a prior Hyderabad High Court judgment without independent reasoning.
Writ petition disposed of in terms of Peddada Narasimhulu and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.4234 OF 2016
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in deleting names of the petitioners 1 to 15 from the list of existing eligible pensions of Pillalavalasa Village/ Gram Panchayat, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District and petitioners 16 to 18 from the list of existing eligible pensioners of Tholapi Village/Gram Panchayat, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District, without conducting verification/enquiry and that of failure of the respondents in considering the representations of the petitioners and the list prepared by the 4th respondent dated 19.09.2015 for the restoration of the pensions as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.135 and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant the social security pension to the petitioners herein retrospectively from the date of stoppage of pension, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.135 dated 17.09.2014.
During hearing, Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 fairly conceded that this issue is squarely covered by judgment passed by the learned single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Peddada
Narasimhulu and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 .
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment referred supra.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Registry is directed to annex copy of judgment in Peddada Narasimhulu and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra), to this order.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 18.11.2019 sp
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Peddada Narasimhulu and others v. State of Andhra PradeshFollowed¶4
Peddada Narasimhulu and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners 1 to 18
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Respondent Nos. 4 to 6
M. Satyanarayana Murthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
