Allowed

B.Ramnarayana Reddy, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Oct 2019WP/7394/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Supreme Court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner retirement benefits calculated up to 29.04.2017 within six weeks, deeming it fit to dispose the matter given the petitioner did not work beyond that date.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to pay retirement benefits to the petitioner by calculating them till 29.04.2017 within six weeks.

B.Ramnarayana Reddy, Vs The Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶2

Writ Petition No.7394 of 2019

¶3

Order :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not paying salary due from 29.04.2017 to 30.06.2018 and other terminal benefits to the petitioner, as arbitrary.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for the third respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 not appeared.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner joined as Junior Assistant on 24.09.1985 and he continued in service upto 30.6.2016 i.e. superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years. In that regard, he filed W.P.No.18815 of 2016 against the first respondent authorities. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, he continued in service upto 28.4.2017 i.e. the age of 59 years. He further submits that on 27.4.2017 the first respondent passed an order in SWC/E1/112/2017-11 stating that in view of the orders of the Court, he is not entitled to continue beyond 58 years and pursuant to the directions of the first respondent, he was relieved from service immediately on 28.4.2017. Aggrieved by the same, he again approached the Court by way of W.P.No.20034 of 2017 and again got direction from the Court to continue the petitioner in service till 60 years. But, the same was not complied with. He filed a contempt case in C.C.No.2006 of 2018 and the same is pending.

¶7

¶8

The counsel for the petitioner further submits that in this petition, the relief sought for is to pay the salary due from 29.04.2017 to 30.06.2018. However, learned counsel submits that he restricts his prayer only for the relief sought in I.A.No.01/2019 i.e., to pay the retirement benefits by calculating them till 29.04.2017. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not work till 29.04.2017.

¶9

Hence, in the above circumstances, this court deems it fit to dispose the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner by calculating them till 29.04.2017 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

T.RAJANI, J.

Date: 17.10.2019

SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶17

Writ Petition No.7394 of 2019

¶18

Dated : 17.10.2019

¶19

B.Ramnarayana Reddy, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Ramnarayana Reddy, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Venkata Ramudu, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited

M. Anasuya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Padmavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Pedapudi Vanaja Vs the State of Ap

P.Koteswarao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Vijaya kiranmaye Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh