Allowed

Konduru Pardha Saradhi, v. State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC4 May 2022WP/18437/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. allowed Writ Petition No.18437 of 2015 vide order dated 04-05-2022. The court set aside illegal letters withholding a recovered pension amount and directed the respondent to release Rs.3,50,885 with interest within eight weeks and submit revised pension proposals.

What did the court decide?

Impugned letters set aside; respondents directed to release Rs.3,50,885 with interest within 8 weeks and submit revised pension proposals.

Konduru Pardha Saradhi, Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.18437 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶5

of India for the following relief:-

¶6

“ to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Letter No.PAG(A&E)/AP/PE3/II/P-320/SP288/2013-06/365, dated 07.06.2013 and Letter No.PAG(A&E)/AP/PE/II/P320/SP288/2013-06/190, dated 10.04.2014 and L.No.PAG(A&E)/AP/P3/II/P-320/SP288/2013-06/191, dated 10.04.2014 of the 4^th respondent as illegal, improper, unjust and arbitrary and contrary to Para 73(iii) of the judgment of Hon’ble full Bench reported in 2010 (4) ALT 145 and further direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs.3,50,885/which was recovered from the petitioner D.C.R.G forthwith interest and pass such other order or orders … …. ”

¶7

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Educational appearing for the respondents.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, earlier in similar cases, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.31507, 31491 and 31496 of 2013, dated 18.01.2021 and in W.P.No.33315 of 2013, dated 22.06.2020, wherein the issue relating to Act 1 of 2005 and Grade – II Pandits was considered. The Division Bench also discussed about the orders passed by the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2010 (4) ALT 145 in the above Writ Petitions and thereafter, issued a direction to the respondents to process and finalize the pension proposals of the applicants without any recovery. He further states that in the present case on hand, the 4^th respondent

¶9

¶10

withheld the amount, contrary to the orders passed in the above writ petitions by this Court. Therefore, learned counsel seeks a direction to the respondents to release the recovered amount of the petitioner.

¶11

As the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the orders of this Court passed in W.P.Nos.31507, 31491 and 31496 of 2013, dated 18.01.2021 and in W.P.No.33315 of 2013, dated 22.06.2020, the present writ petition is also allowed on the same lines as mentioned in the above Writ Petitions by setting aside the Letter N o.PAG(A&E)/AP/PE3/II/P-320/SP288/2013-06/365, dated 07.06.2013; Letter No.PAG(A&E)/AP/PE/II/P-320/ SP288/ 2013-06/190, dated 10.04.2014 and Letter No.PAG(A&E)/ AP/ P3/II/P-320/SP288/2013-06/191, dated 10.04.2014 of the 4^th respondent.

¶12

5. The respondents are directed to pay the recovered amount of Rs.3,50,885/- in favour of the petitioner on proper acknowledgment, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the respondents are directed to submit the revised pension proposals of the petitioner basing on the last pay drawn, in view of the ores passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.31507, 31491 and 31496 of 2013 and in W.P.No.33315 of 2013.

¶13

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

¶15

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending,

¶16

shall stand closed.

¶17

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶18

Date : 04-05-2022 Gvl

¶19

¶20

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.18437of 2015

¶22

Date : 04-05-.2022

¶23

Gvl

Konduru Pardha Saradhi, v. State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Konduru Pardha Saradhi, v. State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. D.Venkateswarlu, Vs Food Corporation of India

Bandaru Buchimamba Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Goncharla Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dugga Appala Jaganatha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C. Venkata Ramana Reddy, Vs The Sapthagiri Grameena Bank

M. Jayarama Krishna, Vs The Union of India