This court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging a Tribunal order denying review of retirement benefits. The court held that the petitioner's claims regarding wrongful transfer and salary calculation lacked a factual foundation and did not merit interference.
Writ Petition dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.20987 OF 2010
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhabu)
Challenging the order, dated 09.03.2010, in Original Application No.1265 of 2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the present Writ Petition is filed.
2. Party-in-person, filed the aforementioned Original Application challenging the Memo No.7704/IMS-1/2007, dated 08.10.2007, issued by the Government. The said Original Application was dismissed on the ground that retirement benefits of the party-in-person has been settled and paid to him.
3. Party-in-person contended that he was transferred from Hanumkonda to Kagaznagar and again from Hanumkonda to Ramagundam, which is as a prejudicial transfer and therefore, he is entitled to challenge the Memo, dated 08.10.2007, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.
4. Grievance of party-in-person in the Writ Petition is that respondent No.1 has not calculated his duty salary from 12.07.1990 to 31.01.1993 by deducting the amount already paid and also not adjusting the period of DIES-NON from 01.02.1993 to 01.01.1997, as illegal and unjust. For that, there is no factual foundation laid in the Original Application filed before the Tribunal. Now his grievance seems to be against the Officer, who effected his transfer from Hanumkonda to Ramagundam and thereafter to Sirpurkagaznagar, and it was a prejudicial transfer and therefore, the action of respondent No.1 in issuing the Memo, dated 08.10.2007, is illegal.
5. In the absence of any factual foundation, the question whether party-in-person was transferred from Hanumkonda to Ramagundam and thereafter to Sirpurkagaznagar, cannot be said to be a mala fade. The person, against whom the mala fides are attributed, has not been made as a party in the Original Application. Therefore, in the absence of any factual foundation laid in the Original Application, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the Original Application and that order needs no interference by this Court.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_______________ (K.C.BHANU,J) _____ (ANIS,J)
FEBRUARY 17, 2014 YVL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.20987 OF 2010
17.02.2014
YVL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's dismissal of the original application challenging the retirement benefit memo needs interference in the absence of a factual foundation regarding illegal transfers and non-evalu
Party-in-person
Government
K.C.Bhanu
Anis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
