Dismissed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P.Venkata Svvamy

Telangana HC24 Jan 2014WP/1632/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had directed the appellant (employer) to treat the respondent's suspension period as on duty for seniority and pension benefits after he was acquitted of criminal charges.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. Pending miscellaneous applications are closed.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.1632 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

(Per Hon’ble Sri RSR, J.)

¶5

1 Respondents in O.A.No.3961 of 2010 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad have filed the present Writ Petition aggrieved by the order, dated 18.02.2013 passed in the said O.A.

¶6

2 By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal, on the application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by the first respondent herein, ordered to treat the period of suspension from 27.11.2006 to 30.09.2008 as on duty for the purpose of seniority and pensionery benefits.

¶7

3 The first respondent/applicant was working as Secondary Grade Teacher in CPS Gaggalapalli, Nagar Kurnool Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. He was placed under suspension on the ground that a crime was registered against him alleging that he was supporting extremist activities and some literature was found in his house. A case in Cr.No.93 of 2005 was registered on the file of Achampet Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 120 (B) of IPC and Section 8(1) of APPS Act and Sections 3 & 4 of Explosive Substances Act. For the aforesaid offences, he was tried by the Assistant

¶8

Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool in S.C.No.198 of 2007 and was acquitted by judgment, dated 29.07.2008. It is to be noticed that on registration of the said crime, the first respondent was placed under suspension and it was continued up to 30.09.2008. After acquittal from the criminal proceedings, the first respondent made a representation to the petitioners herein to treat the period of suspension as on duty. However, the said request was rejected by order, dated 04.11.2009 issued in Memo No.15695 / PE. VIG. I (2) / 2009 - I on the ground that the petitioners were not responsible for registration of crime against the first respondent and also by applying ‘no work no pay’ principle, he was also not paid wages. When such order was questioned before the Tribunal, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A directing the petitioners herein to treat the period of suspension from 27.11.2006 to 30.09.2008 as on duty for the purpose of seniority and pensionery benefits. The said order passed by the Tribunal is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

¶9

4 It is not in dispute that only pursuant to registration of crime against him, the first respondent was placed under suspension and he was acquitted of the said criminal proceedings after full fledged trial by a competent criminal Court. As there is no order for payment of wages, in view of the acquittal recorded by the criminal Court, there is no reason for the petitioners herein for not treating the period of suspension as ‘on duty’ for the

¶10

purpose of seniority and pensionery benefits.

¶11

5 Having regard to the directions given by the Tribunal and as the first respondent was acquitted of the criminal charges, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition so as to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶12

6 The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

_______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

¶14

___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J.

¶15

Date: 24.01.2014 Kvsn*

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P.Venkata Svvamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P.Venkata Svvamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Vector Babu, Vs V.V.L.N. Murthy

D.Veerabhadra Rao Khammam Vs Commissioner of Land and 6

Dr.E.Venkateshwarlu Vs Govt of A.P.

Mrs. Afsar Jahan Begum, Vs Union of India

M. Surender, S/o. M. Shiva Reddy Vs L. Sridhar Reddy, S/o. L. Krishna Reddy

M. Surender, Vs Rajkuar Ohatker