Partly allowed

T.S.V.S.N. Raju, v. The Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Feb 2024WP/3006/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner to renew electricity disconnection by directed payment of arrears in six monthly installments, quashed the Tribunal order, but dismissed the prayer for quashing the removal order pending removal from service.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay Rs.1.30 lakh in six monthly installments with power restored after payment of first two installments.

T.S.V.S.N. Raju, Vs The Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

to.

¶3

-01
XI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR^

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAYX

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO: 3006 OF 2024

¶11

Between:

¶12

T.S.V.S.N. Raju,, S/o late Appa Rao, Aged about 50 years, Occ Junior Clerk (under orders of Removal from Service), O/o sub-Divisional Railway Hospital, Rayanapad, S.C.Railway, Vijayawada Division and resident of Vijayawada

¶13

...PETITIONER^

¶14

AND

¶15

The Union of India, Rep by the Senior Electrical Engineer (Maintenance) BZA Vijayawada Division, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, A.P.

¶16

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Rep by its Registrar, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 001

¶17

...RESPONDENTS^

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ or order or direction more ^

¶19

¶20

?.<; \t ♦: |r5|C;yIar|.y one in the nature of Writ of certiorari^{callingfortherecords} ’f ’■*^eftaining' '<1 4 ,V to O.A.No.614/2023 dated 06.12.2023 of^theHon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondent herein to permit petitioner herein to pay the electricity arrears amount in equal installments lA NO: 1 OF 2024^ Petition under Section 15f CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to extend the time for payment of the electricity charges of Rs. 1,29,847/- vide his Letter^No. B/E/51/EGS/EE bills dated 10.10.2023 till the disposal of the writ petition on the strength of O.A. No. 93/2016 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench for final disposal.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAJESH KUMAR B

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR DEPUTY SOLISOTARJ GENERAL OF INDIA (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT).

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2:

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

¶26

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶28

AND

¶29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.3006 OF 2024

¶31

ORDER; (per Hon ’hie Sri Justice G.Narendar)

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned Central Government counsel for the respondent No. 1.

¶33

The petitioner is befb|‘e this Court being aggrieved by the order •- '-.j * of the Tribunal rejecting his prayer to pay the electricity consumption charges in a staggered manner. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner who was in employment under the respondent in Group-D category had been subjected to certain charges and followed by an enquiry, an order imposing the punishment of removal^fromservice came to be passed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached to the Tribunal and the Tfibimal was pleased to issue^aninterim direction directing the respohdeht to permit the petitioner^tocontinue in occupation of the residential premises allotted^tohim.

¶34

¶35

It is the case of the petitioner now fhat the respondents^have removed the electricity connection to the' said premises..

¶36

Per contra, the learned counsel; for the Respondent^would submit that there has been no payments made by the^{Petitionerforthe}

¶37

use of electricity for the last 8 years and the accumulated^arrearsover the last eight (08) years and as on today the total^{sumdueisaboutRs.} 1.30 lakh.

¶38

It is not in dispute that electricity is a basic amenity in present day times. Lack of electric supply would have multifarious^effectnot only on the petitioner but also his family members which may include his school going children and would severely impair their academic preparations.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as^hehasbeen deprived of means by the order of removal-and hence the respondents should have adopted a more considerate approach. The said submission in our opinion is misconceiyed. The respondents^cannot expected to be gracious to an employee and that too an employee

¶40

suffering from an order of removal.

¶41

¶42

¶43

Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner^submitted that he has been instructed to state that the petitioner^{wouldclearthe} dues in six (06) monthly installments if given an opportunity.

¶44

We have queried the learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.l to adopt^asympathetic approach and thereby enable the petitioner to clear^{thedues.Sothat,} it would alleviate the troubles faced, not only by the petitioner but also his family members for which, learned Central^Government Counsel would fairly submit that they would abide by^{anydirections} issued by the Court.

¶45

In the said facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that, the Writ Petition could be disposed of by directing^{thepetitionerto} pay the accumulated arrears i.e. about Rs.1.30 lakhⁱⁿ six (06) monthly installments. In the event the petitioner pays^two (02) installments i.e. the first installment by 06.03.2024^andthesecond installment by 06.04.2024, then the respondents shall^resumethe power connection subject to the continuous payment^{of theremaining} four equated monthly installniehts including the current^dues.Inthe event the petitioner fails to pa^ installments regularly,^itisopenfor

¶46

¶47

•n

¶48

the respondents to disconnect the electriei^ supply to the petitioner’s

¶49

premises.

¶50

Accordingly, the Writ Petition, is partly allowed by settingaside the order passed in O.A.614 bfp023, dated 16.10.2014. Consequently, O.A.No.614 of 2023; s|Ms allowed in the above

¶51

terms. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall

¶52

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

TION OFFICER

To.

The Senior Electrical Engineer (Maintenance) BZA Vijayawada Division, Union of India, South Central Railway, Vijayawada,^A.P. ^

¶58

The Registrar, Saifabad, Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad-^ 500 001

¶59

One CC to SRI. RAJESH KUMAR B Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

One CC to SRI. Advocate [OPUC] /

¶61

Two C.D Copies

MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.3006 of 2024

PARTLY ALLOWINGTHE W.P WITHOUT COSTS

T.S.V.S.N. Raju, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.S.V.S.N. Raju, v. The Union of India

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

Sri Indla Siva Kumar Vs the Deputy Assistant Commissioner

G.Veera Swamy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B Venkata Subbamma Vs Chief Secretary Secondary School Education

Vemuri Ratna Giri Prasad Vs the State of Ap

V Ramanaiah Chowdary Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr N Kalpalatha Vs the State of Ap