Dismissed

Guntamukkala Mallikarjunha Rao, v. The Govt of a.P., Rep by its Secretary

Telangana HC14 Aug 2014WP/20837/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of a claim for 12% interest on delayed pension. The Court held the Tribunal correctly dismissed the application due to the petitioner's long absence, misconduct, and lack of evidence regarding departmental delay.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Guntamukkala Mallikarjunha Rao, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.20837 OF 2005

¶4

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

¶5

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to direct the respondents to pay the admissible interest at least at the rate of 12% per annum, and declare the order, dated 21.07.2005, in Original Application No.2207 of 2004 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), as arbitrary and illegal.

¶6

2. Party-in-person filed the aforesaid Original Application to direct he respondents to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, dismissed the Original Application.

¶7

3. Party-in-person is present and submitted that as there was a delay in settling his pension papers, he is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment and hence, he prays to admit the Writ Petition.

¶8

4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader contended that for about 23 years, the petitioner absconded from duty; that after attaining superannuation in the year 1990, as the petitioner approached the Tribunal, he is not entitled to the interest on delayed payment and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶9

5. Considering the conduct of the petitioner as he suppressed the facts and obtained orders from the Tribunal in Original Application Nos.266 and 396 of 1983, the Tribunal dismissed the Original

¶10

Application No.2207 of 2004. Petitioner said to have committed misappropriation of funds of the Government to a tune of Rs.12,747.82 ps, for which a Criminal Case was filed, which was numbered as C.C.No.9 of 1975. Thereafter, police secured the presence of the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued to him to explain the reasons for his unauthorized absence over a period of 23 years. Aggrieved by the said show cause notice, petitioner filed Original Application No.801 of 1994. The Tribunal by its order, dated 24.03.1999, dismissed the Original Application for default. Subsequent to suspension, the petitioner never requested the authorities for joining in service. Tribunal observed that it is only on account of conduct and behaviour of petitioner, the amounts were not settled.

¶11

6. It is an admitted fact that consequent to the orders of the Tribunal, dated 24.03.1999 in Original Application No.801 of 1994, the petitioner has been paid arrears of salary in the month of July, 2002. The question whether in a given case, the delay involved is such that it disentitles a person to relief is a matter within the discretion of the Tribunal which as in all matters of discretion has to exercise it judiciously and reasonably having regard to the surrounding circumstances. Petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that there are laches or delay on the part of the department in not paying arrears of salary. Since the petitioner absconded from duty long time, the respondents have not revoked his suspension order. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering all these aspects, rightly dismissed the Original Application and that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶12

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶14

______________

¶15

JUSTICE ANIS

¶16

AUGUST 14, 2014 YVL

¶17

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

¶18

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.20837 OF 2005

¶20

Date: 14.08.2014

¶21

YVL

Guntamukkala Mallikarjunha Rao, v. The Govt of a.P., Rep by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guntamukkala Mallikarjunha Rao, v. The Govt of a.P., Rep by its Secretary

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

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs C.Venkatachalapathi

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs G.Venkata Swami

R. Devender Vs The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

M/s. Jayalakshmi Products, Vs The I.D.B.I. Bank, Bhimavaram Branch

N. Vasantha, Vs The State Bank of India

Sri Mahanandeeswara Educational Society Having its Vs Union of India