This order dismisses a petition challenging the failure to arrange pension withdrawals. The court directed respondents to consider the case and arrange pension benefits w.e.f. 13-07-2006 within four weeks.
Respondents directed to consider the case and arrange pensionary benefits w.e.f. 13-07-2006 within four weeks. No costs.
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 OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO. 33488 OF 2011
Between: N. R. Thirtha … Petitioner V/s. APSRTC Represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V. Narsimha Goud Counsel for the Respondents : Sri C.Sunilkumar REddy SC for A.P.S.R.T.C. R1 to R3 Sri R.N.Reddy for R-4
The Court made the following : (Order follows next page)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO. 33488 OF 2011
O R D E R :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel representing APSRTC and the learned standing counsel for Respondent No.4.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not arranging the petitioner’s pension payable from 13-07-2006 on his retirement from service on 12-7-2006 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India as well as contrary to the purport of the Employees Pension Scheme and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the pension payable to him from 13-7-2006 along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the due date and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the service of the respondent-corporation as driver in the year 1985, his services were regularized w.e.f. 01-7-1988 and he was removed from service by the second respondent through order dated 13-3-1997 on the ground of
absenteeism. Aggrieved by the same, he raised ID.No. 105 of 2003 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. By award dated 27-12-2005 the Labour Court-II directed the first respondent to reinstate him into service without back wages and treated out of service period as not on duty. The said award was published on 24-4-2006. Pursuant to the said award, he reported to duty on 24-4-2006 and after reinstating him into service, he was made to retire from service on 12-7-2006 on the ground of unfit for the post of driver. It is stated that aggrieved by the award passed in ID.No. 105 of 2003 with regard to not granting back wages and other consequential benefits, he filed WP.No. 1323 of 2007 before this Court and this court dismissed the said writ petition on 02-02-2007. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred WA.No. 320 of 2007 before this court and this court partly allowed the said writ appeal modifying the award passed in ID.No.105 of 2003 and directed the first respondent therein to treat his out of service period as on duty.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the order passed in WA.No. 320 of 2007, the first respondent treated the out of service period as on duty and arranged all service retirement benefits duly adding notional increments from the out of service period. The petitioner was treated to be in service from the date of his appointment till he retired from service on 12-7-2006 and he was paid Rs.1,07,536-00 towards difference of service retirement benefits through cheque No. 632146, dated 26-7-2008. But the pension payable to him from the next day of retirement,
i.e., 13-7-2006 is not being arranged inspite of his repeated requests made to the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a member of pension scheme introduced by the fourth respondent. Right from the date of his appointment, his contributions to the employees pension scheme was also recovered every month from his salary and remitted to the said scheme. He also submitted pension papers i.e., Form 10-D on 23-9-2006 but till date his pension is not arranged. Though a legal notice was also issued on 10-10-2011 to the respondents informing them to arrange the pension but till date neither they gave any reply nor his pension is being arranged. Due to non-payment of pension, the petitioner is facing much hardship, as he has no source of income.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law positively within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and arrange for payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 13-72006 till date.
6. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
---------------------------------------JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
29-12-2011 I s L
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO. 33488 OF 2011
CIRCULATION NO. 32 Date:29-12-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the non-arrangement of the petitioner's pension payable from his retirement date constitutes arbitrary and illegal action?
Whether the respondents are obligated to direct the first respondent to pay the arrears of pension along with interest?
What order should this court pass in the circumstances of the case to ensure the petitioner's pensionary benefits are arranged?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
N. R. Thirtha
APSRTC Represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad
Respondent No.4
G. Chandraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
