Disposed

K.Lakshmana Swamy v. The Union Bank of India

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Jul 2024WP/7208/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 alleging inaction regarding gratuity and pension appeal. Court distinguished a Supreme Court precedent and directed respondents to dispose of the specific appeal within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to dispose of the Appeal filed dated 19.09.2019 within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

K.Lakshmana Swamy Vs The Union Bank… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

[3310]

¶2

APHC010114272020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7208 OF 2020

Between:

K.Lakshmana Swamy

...PETITIONER

AND

The Union Bank Of India and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

ORDER:-

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶21

seeking the following relief:

¶22

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the appeal of the petitioner dated 19.09.2019 for grant of gratuity and pension amounts as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other orders….”

¶23

Notices to respondents 1 and 2 are served, but none represented.

¶24

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the Appeal filed by the petitioner dated 19.09.2019.

¶25

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 make 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 Appeal filed by the petitioner, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶26

In the result, Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the Appeal filed by the petitioner dated 19.09.2019, in accordance with law, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶27

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

¶28

_____________________________ DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶29

Dated: 10.07.2024.

¶30

¶31

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

K.Lakshmana Swamy v. The Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Lakshmana Swamy v. The Union Bank of India

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

B.V. Subba Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Mines and Geology

Lalam Nukaratnam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Santhi Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Katragadda Venkata Satish Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B R Kumar Vs Indian

A Ravi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh