Disposed

G.S.P. Thyagaraj v. The State Bank of Hyderabad

Telangana HC15 Dec 2011WP/32910/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed for issuance of mandamus declaring rejection of retirement benefits arbitrary and directing payment with interest and damages, the High Court, without delving into merits, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. The writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this order.

G.S.P. Thyagaraj Vs The State Bank of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 32910 OF 2011

¶6

Between: GSP Thyagaraj … Petitioner V/s. State Bank of Hyderabad Head Office Gunfoundry, Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S.Venkateshwarlu Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared

¶8

The Court made the following: (Order follows next page)

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 32910 OF 2011

¶11

O R D E R :

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and none appeared for the respondents.

¶13

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent vide Lr.No.PPG/Gr.III/698, dated 17-01-2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the damages of Rs.2,50,000/- and to reimburse the interest charged on loans, total aggregating to Rs.4,22,000/- and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶14

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Typistcum-Clerk in the respondents-bank, i.e., State Bank of Hyderabad, on 157-1975 through a regular selection process. Thereafter he was promoted as an Officer in the Bank with effect from 01-11-2004 and he retired from service on 30-6-2009 on attaining the age of superannuation while working as Concurrent Auditor at Mahboobnagar Branch, as Officer MMGS-III. While he was working at Mahboobnagar, he approached the respondent

¶15

No.3 for settlement/release of retirement benefits like commutation, gratuity, leave encashment etc. But the respondent No.3 had informed him of his inability to release the benefits on the ground that the respondent No.2 advised to stop the release of the said benefits to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent No.2 to find out the reason for denial. But he was informed that the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad by order dated 30-6-2009 directed the respondents-bank to stop the release of the said benefits. It is his case that an order was passed in OP.No. 243 of 2009 which was filed by his wife under the provisions of Family Courts Act for grant of permanent maintenance against him. It is also stated that an application in IA.No. 300 of 2009 was filed on 26-6-2009 seeking prohibitory orders against respondent No.2 not to settle his retirement benefits and not to pay any amount due to him. It is his further case that on 26-6-2009 the Family Court ordered notice to the respondents therein and posted the case to 30-6-2009. The counsel for the respondentbank filed counter in IA.No.300 of 2009 on 30-6-2009 stating that the respondent No.2 submits and undertakes that the retirement benefits of respondent No.1 will not be paid to any person till the court orders for payment of the same to any person entitled thereto. The respondent abides and obeys any order that may be passed till the disposal of the suit. As such no injunction order is necessary in view of the assurance and undertaking given by the respondent that the retirement/service benefits of respondent No.1 will not be paid to any person till the orders of the court.

¶16

The respondent may be permitted to file additional counter as and when

¶17

necessary.

¶18

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay on the part of the respondents in not paying retirement benefits and interest for the delay of 18 months i.e., from 01-7-2009 to 30-12-2010 in settlement of the terminal benefits. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 20-12-2010 requesting the respondents to release the retirement benefits with interest and the same is pending on the file of the respondents-bank and thereafter he also got issued legal notice dated 29-62011 to the respondents calling upon them to pay the amounts as sought for in this writ petition.

¶19

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 20-12-2010 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs.

¶21

------------------------------------JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH.

¶22

15-12-2011 I s L

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO. 32910 OF 2011

¶25

Circulation No.261 Date:15-12-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43

G.S.P. Thyagaraj v. The State Bank of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.S.P. Thyagaraj v. The State Bank of Hyderabad

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

K. Julies Seezer Vs M. Papaiah

Mohammed Ibrahim Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

M/s.Modern Food Industrial (India) Limited, Ida Vs Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

G.Gopal Rajaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Yenduru Pydamma, Hindu, Female Vs M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Limited

Mudam Ramesh Vs The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.