Allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. Dr. Syed Arifuddin

Telangana HC27 Jan 2014WP/33624/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking increments for a suspended service period. Post-hearing regularization of the suspension period by the Government entitled the petitioner to claim increments, and the Court directed relief accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to release increments and other benefits per the Government order and fix pension within two months.

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

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.33624 OF 2013

¶3

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 01.08.2012, passed in O.A.No.12728 of 2009, by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶5

The respondent – applicant was working as Full Additional Charge Post Graduate Professor in Moulijath, Government Nizamia Tibbi College, Charminar, Hyderabad. Pending certain charges, the respondent was placed under suspension for the period from 20.04.2006 to 25.05.2006. When he was not granted increment during such suspension period, he approached the Tribunal. By the impugned order, dated 01.08.2012, the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. with a direction to the petitioners herein to release the increments to respondent from 29.04.2006 till the date of order, as per Revised Pay Scales.

¶6

From a perusal of the material placed before this Court, it is clear that by letter, dated 14.06.2008, in Lr.No.9133/U1/2006, the Commissioner (FAC), Department of Ayush, A.P. Hyderabad, has requested the Secretary to Government, Health, Medical & Family

¶7

Welfare Department, A.P., Hyderabad, to take appropriate decision for regularisation of the suspension period of respondent from 20.04.2006 to 25.05.2006 and for releasing of Annual Grade Increments for the years 2005 – 2006 and 2006 – 2007.

¶8

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, a copy of the order passed by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.13, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (VC.1) Department, dated 03.01.2014, regularising the suspension period of respondent from 20.04.2006 to 25.05.2006 (wrongly mentioned as 25.06.2006 in the operative portion) by treating the said period as ‘Not on duty’ under F.R. 54-B(7), is placed on record.

¶9

As the Government has regularised the suspension period of the respondent, such period of suspension can be computed for the purpose of increments. Taking into account the order passed by the Government in the aforesaid G.O., we deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the petitioners to release the increments and other benefits to the respondent in terms of the aforesaid G.O., and to take appropriate decision for fixing his pension and other benefits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the Government shall take steps for correction of date as 20.04.2006 to 25.05.2006

¶10

instead of 20.04.2006 to 25.06.2006 in the operative portion of the aforesaid G.O., by passing necessary orders.

¶11

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶12

____________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶13

__________________________________ JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶14

27^th January, 2014 MD

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.33624 OF 2013 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)

¶17

27^th January, 2014

¶18

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. Dr. Syed Arifuddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. Dr. Syed Arifuddin

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

Mrs. Afsar Jahan Begum, Vs Union of India

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs P.Venkata Svvamy

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

B. Umamaheswari, Vs The Union of India

P. Annaji Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs B. Vani, D/o. Chandra Sekhar