Remanded

T. Subramanyam, v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC4 Jul 2014WP/18419/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal's dismissal of an original application regarding service continuance. The court set aside the impugned order on the ground that the Tribunal failed to adjudicate the applicability of Section 3(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, which concerns the gap in representation. The matte

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to dispose of the Original Application afresh in accordance with law.

T. Subramanyam, Vs The State of Ap. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.18419 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶4

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 24.4.2014, in O.A.No.1965 of 2014 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶5

2. Petitioner herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to call for the records relating to notice vide R.O.C.No.5780/2007/E1, dated 26.2.2013, issued by respondent No.3 and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and further direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein to continue him in service till he attains the age of 60 years i.e., upto 30.9.2015.

¶6

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, dismissed the Original Application. Challenging the same, the applicant filed the present writ petition.

¶7

4. Heard both sides.

¶8

5. The Tribunal dismissed the aforementioned Original Application on the grounds that as the petitioner retired from service on 30.9.2013 on attaining the age of 58 years and there was a gap of seven months in preferring an appeal or making a representation either to the higher officials or to a Court of law, the Original Application was not maintainable; that he retired from service on 30.9.2013 without any protest and he received the retirement benefits and was also sanctioned pension on 13.11.2013 and filed the Original Application

¶9

after retirement. However, whether Sub Section 3 of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 is applicable to the case of the petitioner or not has not been adjudicated by the Tribunal. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside.

¶10

6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a request to dispose of the aforementioned Original Application afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶12

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 04.07.2014 AMD

¶13

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶14

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.18419 OF 2014

¶16

DATE: 04.7.2014

¶17

AMD

T. Subramanyam, v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Subramanyam, v. The State of Ap.

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

M.Changalraya Reddy, Vs The Deputy Director

Datti Eswara Rao, Vs Ch.Simahachalam

Dasa Gangadhar S/o, Kistaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Bitra Siva Nagamalleswara Rao Vs The Honble Chairman, Special Court under the Andhra

The State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sri.Satyanarayana

Kommu Srinivasa Rao Vs The State Bank of India