Disposed

Deva Raju Kanukaiah v. Shri Kowshik, The Deputy Secretary

Telangana HC2 Jan 2012CC/1585/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case for alleged violation of directions to grant Swatantra Sainik Samman pension, the Court found no willful violation but directed the first respondent to expeditively examine verification reports from the second respondent and pass orders within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to examine re-verification reports and pass appropriate orders within four months.

Deva Raju Kanukaiah Vs Shri Kowshik, The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1585 of 2009

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.8374 of 2009 alleging that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in order, dated 22.04.2009 passed in WPMP.No.10946 of 2009.

¶4

In the Writ Petition, petitioners seek a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting Swatantra Sainik Samman pension to them in spite of the recommendations made by the State Government, as illegal and arbitrary and with a consequential directions to the respondents for grant of pension to them. In WPMP.No.10946 of 2009, this Court by order, dated 22.04.2009 issued direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for grant of Swatantra Sainik Samman pension pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶5

In this Contempt Case, it is the grievance of the petitioners that in spite of such direction, the respondents have not considered their claims at all.

¶6

Counter-affidavits are filed on behalf of the first

¶7

respondent as well as the second respondent.

¶8

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that the claims of the petitioners were sent to the State Government for re-verification reports and as no verification reports had been received in respect of the petitioners, they addressed letters, dated 03.11.2009 and 03.12.2009 for expediting the same.

¶9

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it is stated that out of 16 petitioners in the Contempt Case, re-verification reports were sent with regard to 8 candidates earlier and with regard to remaining 8 candidates, reports were sent on 29.12.2011.

¶10

As the re-verification reports were not sent by the second respondent, it cannot be said that the first respondent has violated the directions of this Court. Although there is some delay on the part of the respondents, as it is stated that the reports were already sent to the first respondent, this Court is of the view that there is no willful and deliberate violation of the directions issued by this Court. At the same time, it is to be noticed that there is undue delay on the part of the first respondent in not finalizing the claims in spite of the recommendations made by the second respondent.

¶11

For the reasons stated above, as much as the reverification reports were already sent by the second respondent to the first respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to examine the re-verification reports sent by the second respondent on the claims of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) months from today.

¶12

Subject to the above directions, the Contempt Case is disposed of.

¶13

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶14

2^nd JANUARY, 2012.

¶15

kvni

Deva Raju Kanukaiah v. Shri Kowshik, The Deputy Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deva Raju Kanukaiah v. Shri Kowshik, The Deputy Secretary

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

M/s Uni Ads Private Limited, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Sri v.Srinivas Rao Vs Asst. Commissioner

M/s. Madhavi Bar and Restaurant, Vs The Commissioner

G.Ravinder, Sri Gopaiah Vs Sri Ch.Narasimha Reddy

P. Bhayalakshmi, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Patchigolla Eswara Rao Vs The District Collector, Visakhapatnam