Allowed

B. Ramulu, v. The Managing Director

Telangana HC5 Dec 2011WP/29674/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order permitted the withdrawal of a writ petition filed by a retired driver challenging the non-payment of gratuity due to the corporation's claimed financial crisis. The court granted liberty to file a fresh petition if the claim remains unsettled.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition if the claim is not settled.

B. Ramulu, Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

W.P.NO.29674 OF 2011

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

Heard both the counsel.

¶5

2. The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the 1^st respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Rural Irrigation Corporation Ltd., on 1.9.1983 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 22.9.2010. As the petitioner was not paid the gratuity amount of Rs.4,02,102-70, which he is entitled to as per bye-law no.45, he made representations and when the same were not considered, approached this court in W.P.No.24998 of 2011 and by order dated 7.9.2011 this court directed the 1^st respondent therein i.e., the Managing Director, to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the order of this court dated 7.9.2011, the respondent passed the Memo No.E2/RIC/278/2011/2147 dated 19.10.2011 showing the paucity of funds as the reason for non-payment. The relevant portion is extracted as under:

¶6

“Since 2008 the retirement benefits are not settled to the retired employees in the Corporation. Therefore, along with the petitioner, there are (20) employees whose retirement benefits are to be paid. Due to financial crises, the Corporation has settled gratuity amount only in respect of deceased employees to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/-. And still there is pending payment of gratuity to the deceased employees.

¶7

Keeping in view of the above circumstances, efforts are being made to get more works and earn more margin so that the gratuity can be paid to the employees including petitioner in order of priority as and when financial position is improved.”

¶8

3. Challenging the above memo dated 19.10.2011, the

¶9

petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶10

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reason shown by the Corporation is unsustainable, since it will not be known when the financial position of the Corporation will improve and the petitioner retired from in the year 2010 and he is legally entitled to the amount. He further submitted that similarly placed retired employees whose gratuity amount was not paid, approached this court and this court directed the respondent – Corporation to pay the gratuity amount and when the said orders were not complied with, the petitioners therein, filed contempt case and the Standing Counsel for the Corporation sought time for implementation of the orders of this court. Therefore, as the claim of the petitioner may also likely to be considered by the respondent - Corporation, he has instructions from his client, to presently withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to file fresh writ petition, if the claim is not settled.

¶11

5. In view of the above representation, permission is granted to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty as sought for.

¶12

6. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh writ petition, as per the requirement. No costs.

¶13

AVS ---------------------------05—12—2011

B. Ramulu, v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Ramulu, v. The Managing Director

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

D.Ramakoteshwar Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

M. Srinivasulu Vs The Union of India

Smt.B.a.Appala Narasmma, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

D. Keshava Reddy Vs The Commissioner

Smt. Laxmi Bai, Vs The General Manager

A.S. Reddy Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc