Disposed

Katari Sridevi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Sept 2022WP/26203/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court directed the respondents to dispose of the petitioners' representations regarding ex-gratia payments within four weeks, without deciding the merits, citing the Supreme Court judgment in The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh to avoid delaying justice.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispose of representations dated from 2021 to 2022 within four weeks.

Katari Sridevi Vs the State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.26203 OF 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶6

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus

¶7

a) declaring the entire action of the respondents, particularly the entire action of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents in not sanctioning Ex-gratia to the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.25 Finance (HR.1-Plg & Policy) Dept dated 18.02.2019 of the 2^nd respondent, despite of making repeated representations by enclosing relevant documents as well as representation through President of the Contract Workers Union requesting for sanction of Ex-gratia to the petitioners as legal heirs to the deceased contract employees is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to orders issued by the 2^nd respondent in G.O.Ms.No.25 Finance (HR.1-Plg & Policy) Dept., dated 18.02.2019.

¶8

b) and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith take necessary steps for sanction of Ex-gratia to the petitioners herein (who are legal heirs to deceased contract employees) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.25 Finance (HR.1-Plg & Policy) Dept., dated 18.02.2019 of the 2^nd respondent and pass such other orders....”

¶9

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representations dated 22.02.2022,

¶10

¶11

02.06.2021, 29.01.2021, 12.09.2021, 18.03.2021 and 04.03.2021 submitted by the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 25, Finance (HR.1-Plg & Policy) Department, dated 18.02.2019, without touching the merits of the case.

¶12

Mr. K. Sreedhar Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/ Municipality and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV readily agreed to dispose of the representations dated 22.02.2022, 02.06.2021, 29.01.2021, 12.09.2021, 18.03.2021 and 04.03.2021 submitted by the petitioners, if any pending with the respondent authorities.

¶13

In view of the submission of learned counsel appearing for respondents, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition.

¶14

This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh¹ , wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may be passed for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions but, they do not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioners himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representations dated 22.02.2022, 02.06.2021, 29.01.2021, 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

¶15

¶16

12.09.2021, 18.03.2021 and 04.03.2021 submitted by the petitioners, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶17

In the result, Writ Petition is disposed of, with the consent of both the counsel, while directing the directing the respondents to dispose of representations dated 22.02.2022, 02.06.2021, 29.01.2021, 12.09.2021, 18.03.2021 and 04.03.2021 submitted by the petitioners in petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.25, Finance (HR.1-Plg & Policy) Department, dated 18.02.2019, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶18

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶19

___________________________ DR.K. MANMADHA RAO, J

Date: 05.09.2022

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.26203 OF 2022

¶25

Date: 05.09.2022

¶26

Katari Sridevi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katari Sridevi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D Venu Babu Vs the State of Ap

B.Shankaramma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Tama Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Jhansi Rani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Murthuja Vali Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Yakkaluru Salma Rizwana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh