Disposed

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

Telangana HC24 Nov 2011WP/30888/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought declaration that non-payment of Provident Fund was illegal and directed payment with interest. The court granted liberty to make a representation regarding the claim. The petition was disposed of at the admission stage without deciding the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to make a representation; Respondent directed to consider it within four weeks. Petition disposed of at admission stage.

Mohd.Osman Vs Apsrtc rep.by its Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.30888 OF 2011

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohd. Osman. - - - Petitioner. AND A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and two others. - - - Respondents.

¶9

This Court made the following :

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.30888 OF 2011

¶12

O R D E R:

¶13

This Writ Petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the petitioner’s provident fund amount which was recovered from his salary along with first Respondents’ contribution amount as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same with all consequential benefits and consequently direct the Respondents to pay the recovered Provident Fund amount of the petitioner with the Respondents contribution amount with 18% interest for delay in payment from the date of eligibility to date of payment.

¶14

The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows :

¶15

The Petitioner is a retired workman. His case is that he was removed from service on 28-09-1996. Questioning the said removal order, he raised Industrial Dispute No.304 of 1999 and on 23-07-2001 the learned Judge of the Labour Court passed an award directing the third Respondent herein to reinstate him into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages. Aggrieved by the said award, dated 23-07-2011 in denial of back wages to him, he filed W.P. No.159 of 2006 before this Court and the same was allowed on 29-11-2010 granting 50% of back wages to the Petitioner with effect from 12-01-1996 to 02-04-2002. Aggrieved by the said order dated 29-11-2010, the Respondents-A.P.S.R.T.C preferred Writ Appeal No.66 of 2011, which was dismissed on 08-02-

¶16

2011. Challenging the said Writ Appeal, the Respondents-A.P.S.R.T.C preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12176 of 2011 before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was also dismissed by order-dated 09-05-2011. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed Contempt Case No.330 of 2011 for not implementing the order of this Court in W.P. No.159 of 2006, dated 29-11-2010. Having regard to the fact that the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation and he was not in a position to be reinstated into service, pending C.C. No.330, the third Respondent had paid Rs.1,74,774/- towards 50% of the back wages in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.159 of 2006, dated 29-112010.

¶17

The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that he has not been paid the Provident Fund amount, which he was entitled from the Respondents, which was accumulated in the accounts of the Respondents Corporation recovered from the salary of the Petitioner by way of his contribution.

¶18

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents would submit that if the Petitioner submits a representation, the same will be considered by the Management.

¶19

In that view of the matter, the Petitioner is given liberty to make a representation within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within four (4) weeks thereafter, the Respondents are directed to consider the said representation, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders.

¶20

Accordingly, with the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.

¶21

_________________

¶22

G. CHANDRAIAH, J.

¶23

November 24, 2011. Dsh.

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶25

297

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.30888 OF 2011

¶27

November, 24, 2011

¶28

DSH

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Ch. Sailoo Vs The Managing Director, Apsrtc