Disposed

Md.Naseeruddin v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC8 Nov 2011WP/29648/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-sanction of family planning incentive increment as an arbitrary violation of Articles 14 and 21. The Court directed the Regional Manager to examine the claim and pass orders within three weeks before disposing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd Respondent, Regional Manager, Medak Region, to consider the petitioner's claim and pass appropriate orders within three weeks.

Md.Naseeruddin Vs Andhra Pradesh State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICTURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.29648 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Md.Naseeruddin … Petitioner and A.P.S.R.T.C., Mushirabad, Hyderabad, Represented by its Managing Director and others.

¶8

… Respondents.

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶10

W.P. No.29648 of 2011

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not sanctioning the family planning incentive increment to the petitioner, as unjust, arbitrary, contrary to the circulars and the Regulations and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to sanction family planning incentive increment to the petitioner as per the scheme.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the permanent employee of the Corporation working as Conductor. According to the petitioner, the family planning incentive scheme was initially introduced in the Corporation in the year 1976 and thereafter, modified on par with the Government pattern and notified vide circular dated 14.09.1984. As per the modified incentive scheme, all the employees of the Corporation,

¶14

who themselves or their spouse underwent sterilization operation, after having two or three surviving children, are entitled to one special increment in the form of personal pay.

¶15

Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is that his wife, Smt. Zareen Khatoon, had undergone Tubectomy operation at Rohini Maternity and Nursing Home, Siddipet, Medak District, Government recognized family welfare centre on 02.07.1998 and a certificate has also been issued to that effect. At the time of undergoing the

¶16

Tubectomy operation, the petitioner was having two male and one female living children. Therefore, intimating the above, the petitioner made a representation dated 02.03.1999 to the authorities for sanction of family planning incentive increment as per the scheme. As there was no response, the petitioner again made several representations and the 3^rd respondent processed the file to the 2^nd respondent for sanction of family planning incentive increment to the petitioner on 26.05.2010 and as there is no response from the 2^nd respondent, even after approaching him personally, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is claiming the family planning incentive increment as per the scheme in force and he made representations to the Corporation authorities but the same is pending with the

¶18

2^nd respondent i.e. Regional Manager, Medak Region, and he has not initiated any action for sanctioning the incentive increment, therefore, he may be directed to release the said incentive increment forthwith.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation would submit that as the petitioner specifically states that his case is pending with the 2^nd respondent, he may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Corporation.

¶21

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an employee of the Corporation and he is claiming that his wife has undergone with Tubectomy operation. Therefore, he is entitled to be considered to incentive increment and the matter is pending with the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side,

¶23

the 2^nd respondent, Regional Manager, Medak Region, is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 08.11.2011 LSK

Md.Naseeruddin v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Naseeruddin v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

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

B. Ramulu Hyderabad Vs the M.D A.P. State Co-Op Rural Irrign Corp. Ltd. and 2 Othrs

T. Vijaya Babu, Vs The Railway Protection Force

MD Arif Pasha, Vs The Business Manager

M.Srinivas Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Secunderabad Division

K.Yadesh Vs The Regional Manager

R.S.Shetty Vs A.P.S.R.T.C.