Disposed

Ch. Sailoo v. The Managing Director, Apsrtc

Telangana HC24 Nov 2011WP/30851/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner contested non-payment of Rs.2,30,587 retirement benefits against APSRTC. Court held that inaction on representation dated 25.07.2011 warranted direction to 5th respondent to pass appropriate orders within two months without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 5 to pass appropriate orders on petitioner's representation within two months.

Ch. Sailoo Vs The Managing Director, Apsrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.30851 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ch.Sailoo … Petitioner And

¶8

The Managing Director, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶11

W.P. No.30851 of 2011

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in not paying the retirement benefits of Rs.2,30,587/-, as illegal arbitrary and against the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the interest @ 24% over the said amount from the date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2011 to until realization.

¶14

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed in the respondents Corporation as Driver and later on promoted as Controller and thereafter, retired from service on 30.06.2011.

¶15

His claim is that consequent to his retirement from service, he is entitled to an amount of Rs.8,01,950/- under different heads and whereas, he received only an amount of Rs.5,71,363/-. Therefore, he is entitled to difference amount of Rs.2,30,587/-.

¶16

In this connection, he stated to have made a representation to the respondents on 25.07.2011 and the respondents have not passed any orders thereon.

¶17

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

¶18

As it is specifically submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner made a representation on 25.07.2011

¶19

bringing his grievance to the notice of the 5^th respondent and the respondents did not initiate any action thereon, I am of the view that without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction.

¶20

The 5^th respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, on the representation dated 25.07.2011, stated to have been made by the petitioner, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

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

¶22

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶23

Date: 24.11.2011 LSK

Ch. Sailoo v. The Managing Director, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Sailoo v. The Managing Director, Apsrtc

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

V. Rajeswari Vs Sri Venkateswara University

B.Ravi Vs Sri Md. Rashid, The Deputy Director Tribal Welfare

A. Satya Sai Lakshmi Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd.Osman Vs Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director, Musheerabad

C.H.Y.V.K.S.S.V. Maheswara Rao Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Ramani Hotels Limited Vs The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court