Allowed

K. Narsaiah v. Warangal District Cooperative Central Bank

Telangana HC4 Jul 2014WA/984/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed two writ appeals filed by retired bank employees seeking retirement benefits. The High Court directed the respondents to release 75% of the accrued retirement benefits immediately, subject to the outcome of the main writ petitions regarding the bank's financial matters.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release 75% of retirement benefits within four weeks, subject to the result of the writ petitions.

K. Narsaiah Vs Warangal District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.A.Nos.984 & 990 of 2014

¶2

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)

¶3

Both the writ appeals arise out of a common order, dated 20.06.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.1909 of 2014 and 21502 of 2012.

¶4

The appellants were the employees of the District Cooperative Central Bank, Warangal. They retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The appellant in W.A.No.984 of 2014 is said to have been issued a charge memo, before he retired from service. The appellants filed the writ petitions feeling aggrieve by the non-payment of retirement benefits. Learned Single Judge took those writ petitions as well as W.P.No.15335 of 2014 and passed an order directing that the Chief Auditor in the office of the Commissioner for Cooperation & Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gruhakapa Building, Nampally, Hyderabad be impleaded and that certain steps be taken to enquire into the various financial matters of the Bank. The only interim relief that the learned Single Judge granted was that the freezing of the accounts of the appellants be suspended to the extent of 50%. No relief whatever was granted as regards the payment of the retirement benefits.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

It is a matter of record that the appellants have

¶7

retired from service. On retirement from service, they became entitled to be extended the benefits that have accrued over the length of their service. Prima facie, we find that either no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellants while they were in service or if initiated, they were not continued, to enable the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. On retirement, the appellants ceased to be employees. Much would depend upon the purport of the relevant service Regulations as to whether any disciplinary proceedings can be continued against the appellants. We are of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if the respondents are directed to release 75% of the retirement benefits to the appellants forthwith.

¶8

The writ appeals are accordingly allowed directing that the respondents shall release 75% of the retirement benefits to the appellants within four weeks. Such release however shall be subject to the result of the writ petitions. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ appeals shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶10

______________________ RAM, J

¶11

Date: 04.07.2014 JSU

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶14

W.A.Nos.984 & 990 of 2014

¶15

Date: 04.07.2014

¶16

JSU

K. Narsaiah v. Warangal District Cooperative Central Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Narsaiah v. Warangal District Cooperative Central Bank

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

Commissioner of Incomtax Hyd Vs Ms Orient Longman Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Hyd Vs Taramandal Builders P Ltd.

Comm. of Income Tax A.P. Hyd Vs S.D.Investments P Ltd. Hyd

Md.Chand Pasha, S/o. late Mohd Masoom Vs Apsrtc

M.v.Seshachary, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

M.v.Seshachary, Vs The Presiding Officer