Disposed

V. Ranganayakulu, v. The State Bank or India Rep by its Chief Manager

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jan 2024WP/22432/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired bank employee sought release of withheld provident fund and gratuity amounts. Respondents reported that the dues had been paid following an earlier court order directing consideration of his representation. With payment substantiated by proceedings dated 06.01.2020, nothing remained to adjudicate and the petition was closed.

What the court decided

AI extract

V. Ranganayakulu, Vs The State Bank… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22432 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present Writ Petition was filed in the nature of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the provident fund amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the provident fund amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner immediately together with interest @ 18%.

¶5

The petitioner worked as Senior Assistant in State Bank of India, he retired from service on 30.06.2016 and he contributed towards Provident Fund and he is entitled to refund of an amount of Rs.12,77,009/- which was accumulated towards his account. On going through the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner was JDR in O.S. No.285 of 2009 and E.P. No.131 of 2004 was filed to recover an amount of Rs.5,27,521/- and the same was attached by the decree holder in the aforesaid suit.

¶6

¶7

Now the present Writ Petition is filed for the aforesaid prayer to direct the respondents herein to release the provident fund amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner herein filed a Writ Petition No.14683 of 2019 for the similar relief in the present writ petition and this Court vide order dated 25.09.2019 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition directing the respondents herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.11.2017 and pass appropriate orders fixing the time.

¶9

Accordingly, the respondents herein have disposed of the representation and paid an amount of Rs.4,24,486.89 (Rupees Four Lacs twenty four thousand four hundred eighty six and paise eighty nine only) and Rs.22,607.50 (Rupees Twenty two thousand six hundred seven and paise fifty only) respectively and Revised Gratuity arrears of Rs.1,53,307/-were paid on 04.01.2020 vide Bankers Cheque No.690879 dated 04.01.2020 towards gratuity arrears.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the amount was paid and present Writ Petition has become infructuous and the Provident Fund as well as gratuity amount

¶11

¶12

which was due to the petitioner herein was paid to the petitioner and prays to close the Writ Petition.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondents also filed a copy of the proceedings dated 06.01.2020 across the Bench to substantiate disbursing the amounts due to petitioner and the same shall be form part of the record.

¶14

In view of the said proceedings dated 06.01.2020, nothing remains in the present Writ Petition to adjudicate further. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to cost. If the petitioner is aggrieved for the amount paid as stated supra he is at liberty to file fresh Writ Petition.

¶15

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

¶16

writ petition shall stand closed.

¶17

________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶18

Date: 02.01.2024 Harin

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO

¶21

131

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.22432 OF 2017

¶23

Date: 02.01.2024

¶24

Harin

V. Ranganayakulu, v. The State Bank or India Rep by its Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

V. Ranganayakulu, v. The State Bank or India Rep by its Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Gowtham Kumar Reddy Vs State of Ap

S.Prabhakar Reddy Vs State of Ap

K.Suneetha Vs State of Ap

G.Prasad Rao Vs State of A.P

P.Koteswara Rao Vs State of Ap

Nandipati Veeraiah Vs Bommidala Brothers Limited