Court disposed of writ petition by directing respondent University to consider petitioner's representation within four weeks regarding arrears of salary for husband, who was suspended in a criminal case from which co-accused were acquitted.
Direction to respondent to consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.30865 of 2011
Between:
V.Rajeswari … Petitioner and Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Represented by its Registrar.
… Respondent
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.30865 of 2011
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not paying arrears of salary to which the petitioner’s husband was entitled to in view of acquittal of co-accused in C.C. No.147 of 1998 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Chittoor, as arbitrary, illegal and quite contrary to law and consequently to direct the respondent to pay the arrears of salary in accordance with Fundamental Rules with all consequential benefits.
The case of the petitioner is that she is the wife of late Sri V.Mohan Rao, who worked as Senior Assistant in the respondent’s University and died on 19.04.2002. During the course of employment of the husband of the petitioner, he was placed under suspension on 23.10.1996 along with others on the allegations of issuing fake certificates and in this regard, a crime in C.C. No.147 of 1998 was registered on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B) r/w 420, 468 and 471 IPC. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities, while considering the representation made by the husband of the petitioner, along with others, revoked the suspension on condition that ‘the orders as to the treatment of the period of suspension as duty or otherwise will be decided according to provisions of the Fundamental Rules after a review after the disposal of the proceedings of the Court against them based on the judgment in the case’. As the husband of
the petitioner expired on 19.04.2002, he was abated in the criminal case and thereafter, vide order dated 23.08.2010 acquitted all the coaccused in C.C. No.147 of 1998. Therefore, the husband of the petitioner is entitled to full salary for the period he was kept under suspension till his demise on 19.04.2002, and as he demised and she is legally wedded wife, she is entitled to receive the arrears of salary of her husband. In this connection, it is submitted that she made several representations to the respondent authorities requesting to pay the salary arrears for the period of her husband was kept under suspension in view of the acquittal of the other
co-accused, including the last one dated 01.10.2011. As the representations of the petitioner have not been considered, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that her husband was kept under suspension for some period and later on the same was revoked and allowed to continue in service. As her husband expired he was abated and thereafter, the co-accused in C.C. No.147 of 1998 were acquitted, therefore, her husband is entitled to arrears of salary for the period of suspension and as he is no more and she is the legally wedded wife, she is entitled to the said arrears of salary. Further, in this regard, she stated to have made several representations to the respondent authorities but the same have not been considered. Hence, she is before this Court.
Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of, at the threshold, with the following direction to the respondent.
The respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 03.02.2011, stated to have been made by the petitioner claiming the service benefits of her husband, and pass appropriate orders, in
accordance with law, within a period of four weeks,
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 23.11.2011 LSK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent University is required to consider the petitioner's representation regarding arrears of salary and service benefits.
V. Rajeswari
Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi
G. Chandraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
