Disposed

Vinnakota Vana Panduranga Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Feb 2012WP/15331/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of a caste certificate and subsequent termination from LIC service. Due to the death of the original petitioner, the Court directed LIC to release terminal and pensionary benefits without adjudicating on the caste cancellation merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of terminal benefits and pensionary benefits payable as per LIC scheme to the deceased petitioner's legal heirs, deducting liable amounts.

Vinnakota Vana Panduranga Rao Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.10765 OF 2000 AND 15331 OF 2002

¶2

Dt:- 01.02.2012

¶3

Between:-

¶4

Vinnakota Vana Panduranga Rao (died-per LRs) and others

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

and

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt. Social Welfare Department and others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

This Court made the following:-

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶11

WRIT PETITION Nos.10765 OF 2000 AND 15331 OF 2002

¶12

COMMON ORDER: -

¶13

Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions; learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Sri Bathula Raj Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.)-respondent No.3.

¶14

Writ Petition No.15331 of 2002 was filed questioning the original as well as the appellate order, whereunder the caste certificate of the petitioner issued by the then Tahsildar, Nandigama, dated 16.12.1970, was cancelled and the said order was confirmed by the appellate authority. Consequent upon the said order passed by the Primary Authority i.e., the Collector and the District Magistrate, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, dated 07.05.2000, cancelling the petitioner’s caste

¶15

certificate, the employer of the petitioner i.e., Life Insurance Corporation of India terminated the petitioner from service vide order, dated 30.05.2000, which is challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.10765 of 2000.

¶16

Writ Petition No.10765 of 2000 was initially heard by this Court on 22.06.2000 and while issuing rule nisi, the impugned order of termination passed by the L.I.C. was suspended pending further orders. In view of the said order of suspension, the 1^st petitioner was taken back into service of the L.I.C and has worked in the same post till he died on 02.05.2004. Both the writ petitions are now being prosecuted by the legal representatives, who were brought on record.

¶17

In view of the fact that the original writ petitioner, whose caste certificate was cancelled by the Government and consequential termination orders were passed by the L.I.C., being no more, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that it would be unnecessary to go into merits with regard to correctness or otherwise of the orders of cancellation of caste certificate as above. Learned counsel, however, has placed before the Court a request as contained in W.P.M.P.No.29060 of 2010 in W.P.No.10765 of 2000 seeking release of terminal benefits of the deceased petitioner by the L.I.C. upto the date he has worked as their employee.

¶18

Upon the last date of hearing when this matter was heard, learned Standing Counsel for L.I.C. was required to get instructions with regard to the quantum of terminal benefits payable to the deceased petitioner subject to orders of this Court.

¶19

A letter of the Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C., dated 05.03.2011, is placed before the court, which show the details of benefits payable and the deductions liable to be made from out of the said amount. In view of the circumstance that the original petitioner is no more, I am of the view that it would be unnecessary to go into the

¶20

merits of the order of cancellation of consequential order of termination impugned in these writ petitions and ends of justice would be met by passing the following order:

¶21

Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent-L.I.C. in W.P.No.10765 of 2000 to release the terminal benefits and pensionary benefits, if any, payable as per the scheme of the L.I.C. to the deceased petitioner till the date of his working in the Corporation after deducting the amounts liable to be deducted therefrom and the balance amount to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner, who are already on record in these writ petitions. The issue with respect to the caste claimed by the deceased petitioner shall remain open and the respondent-State as well as any consequential employer of any of the legal representatives, if any, shall be free to independently asses the caste status, if any, claimed by any of the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner in future. The issue as to the legality or otherwise of the cancellation of caste certificate of the deceased petitioner is not adjudicated upon in view of death of the original writ petitioner pending these writ petitions. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

_____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 01.02.2012 lmv

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶24

WRIT PETITION Nos.10765 OF 2000 AND 15331 OF 2002

¶25

01.02.2012

¶26

lmv

Vinnakota Vana Panduranga Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinnakota Vana Panduranga Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Vinukonda Dhana Durga Appa Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Anugula Sampath Vs A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

A. Thirumalaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its District Collector

Patrulla Demudu Vs The District Co-operative Central Bank Limited

Vinnakota Vana Panduranga Rao Vs The Senior Divisional Manager

G. Giri Babu, Vs The Executive Director