Dismissed

Lakshmi Suri, v. The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary

Telangana HC1 Dec 2010WA/630/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench dismissed a writ appeal and condoned a delay of 241 days. The court upheld the lower court's order rejecting a second petition for family pension, reasoning that the petitioner had already litigated this specific relief earlier and cannot maintain separate petitions for herself and her children for the same subject matter.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; W.A.M.P. Nos. 1062 of 2009 and 27202 of 2009 ordered.

Lakshmi Suri, Vs The Union of India, Rep… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.A.M.P.No. 1062 of 2009, W.A.M.P.No. 1279 of 2009 AND WRIT APPEAL No. 630 OF 2008

¶3

COMMON ORDER: (Per T. Meena Kumari, J)

¶4

Having heard the party-in-person, the delay of 241 days in filing W.A.M.P.(SR) No. 27202 of 2009 is condoned and hence the W.A.M.P.No. 1062 of 2009 is ordered.

¶5

The Order passed by this Court dated 7.7.2008 in W.A.No. 630 of 2008 is recalled and W.A.M.P.(SR) No. 27202 of 2009 is ordered.

¶6

The present Writ Appeal No. 630 of 2008 is filed against the orders of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 9051 of 2008 dated 19.4.2008 by the party in person Lakshmi Suri, through her G.P.A., T.D. Dayal.

¶7

The contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioner was the wife of late Amarnath Suri, who retired as Assistant Manager from Food Corporation of India. She admitted that she is the 2^nd wife of late Amarnath Suri. The petitioner further admitted that the 2^nd respondent is the wife of late Amarnath Suri and that the 2^nd respondent was sanctioned the family pension. Further it is the contention of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that though she has the knowledge of the first marriage, she married Amarnath Suri and had begotten children.

¶8

It is observed by the learned Single Judge that on an earlier

¶9

occasion the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 25865 of 2005 claiming the same relief and the same was dismissed on 24.1.2006 against which Writ Appeal No. 153 of 2006 was preferred and the same was allowed.

¶10

The learned Single Judge has further observed that the petitioner cannot maintain a separate Writ Petition for the same relief for her on the one hand and for her children on the other. The learned Single Judge has further observed that it is not as if the children of the petitioner filed the other Writ Petition. It further observed that the sole petitioner in that is the petitioner in the Writ Petition. Further the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition No. 9051 of 2008 has observed that it is open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for amending the prayer in Writ Petition No.25865 of 2005.

¶11

It is also to be observed that the present Writ Petition No. 9051 of 2008 is also not maintainable as the same relief was rejected earlier by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 25865 of 2005.

¶12

In view of the reasoning adduced by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable and the Order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference.

¶13

In the result, the W.A.M.P.No. 1062 of 2009, W.A.M.P.(SR) No. 27202 of 2009 are ordered and the Writ Appeal is dismissed.

¶14

_______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J

¶15

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶16

28.4.2009 N.B. C.C. in (2) days. B.O. CHV

Lakshmi Suri, v. The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Suri, v. The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sudhakar Rao Vs The Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Md. Yousuf Khan Vs The Commissioner

Central Industrial Security Force, (Ministry of Home Affairs Vs Mr.R.L.Mandal

Sonteana Jagannadham, Ex-Salesman of Girirajan Co-operative Vs The Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

Shaik Khader Hussain Ongole PRAKASAMAND17 Vs Rajavari Peerla Chavadi Ongole AND76 Ors.

Amara Venkata Laxmamma Vs Rajavari Peerla Chavadi, Ahoor Khana,Gandhi Road,Ongole