Allowed

Muddana Eswara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Oct 2023WP/27498/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking setting aside of a charge memo due to abnormal delay in disciplinary proceedings. Court allowed the petition based on a reference to a previous order, directing the release of pensionary benefits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings were set aside and the respondents were directed to consider the release of all pensionary benefits of the petitioner as per his entitlement within three months.

Muddana Eswara Rao Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27498 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶5

of India seeking the following relief:

¶6

“ …to issue a writ, order or orders or directions, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the impugned charge memo, dated 31.10.2009 vide G.O.Rt.No.1695, I&CAD(Ser.VII, V&E-2) Department issued to the petitioner (CO.4) initiated in the year 2009 and not finalizing the disciplinary proceedings till date despite the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the enquiry report, dated 24.05.2013 vide Memo No.10794/Ser.VII (V&E.2) 2009-32, as illegal, arbitrary, atrocious, unconstitutional, abnormal delay caused being violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the order passed in W.P.No.902 of 2023, dated 26.06.2023 and violative of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the charge memo dt.31.10.2009 vide G.O.Rt.No.1695, I&CAD(Ser.VII, V&E-2) Department issued to the petitioner [CO.4] by directing the respondents to release the eligible pensionary benefits including all consequential service benefits along with interest entitled to the petitioner.. “

¶7

Heard Sri G.Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III. Perused the material on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 26.06.2023, passed by this Court in W.P.No.902 of 2023.

¶9

Learned Government Pleader does not refute the submission

¶10

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

The relevant portion of the order, dated 26.06.2023 in

¶13

W.P.No.902 of 2023 reads as follows:

¶14

“Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed, the impugned proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.1697 I&CAD, dated 31.10.2009, are set aside. The respondents are further directed to consider releasing all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as per his entitlement, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶15

In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Writ Petition is also allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings, vide G.O.Rt.No.1707, I&CAD (Ser.VII, V&E-2) Department, dated 30.10.2009 in terms of the order, dated 26.06.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.902 of 2023 and the respondents are further directed to consider the release of all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as per his entitlement, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 26.06.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.902 of 2023 to this order.

¶17

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this writ petition shall also stand closed.

¶18

_______________________ SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶19

Date: 18.10.2023 Pnr

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.27498 of 2023

¶23

Dated 18.10.2023

¶24

pnr

Muddana Eswara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muddana Eswara Rao 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Suresh Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Durga Prasad, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kothapalli Ramalakshmi Vs the Eastern Power Distribution Company

P Markhandeyulu Vs the State of Ap

C Naga Parimala Bai Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Syamala Devi Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps