Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Smt.Syeda Farhat Unnisa

Telangana HC23 Jan 2014WP/38292/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the writ petition challenging the abatement of a deceased official's pensionary benefits. Relying on a prior Division Bench order (W.P.No.21465 of 2008), the court held that the government lacked the power to recover loss from pension without enquiry and thus did not release the benefits.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed following the principles laid down in the earlier Division Bench order (W.P.No.21465 of 2008).

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Smt.Syeda… — 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.38292 OF 2013

¶3

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

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 18.02.2013, passed in O.A.No.5110 of 2012, by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶5

The husband of the respondent – applicant died on 11.01.2010, while he was in service as Deputy General Manager, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board, Hyderabad. Thereafter, on an application filed by the respondent – applicant for settlement of pensionary benefits of her husband, Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1601, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (E1) Department, dated 12.12.2011, abating the departmental proceedings initiated against the husband of the respondent - applicant, subject to condition of recovering the loss, if any, from his pensionary benefits, in exercise of power under Sub Rule 7 (a) of Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Questioning the aforesaid G.O., to the extent of not releasing the pensionary benefits, the respondent – applicant approached the Tribunal. By the impugned

¶6

order, dated 18.02.2013, the Tribunal set aside the aforesaid G.O.

¶7

A Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 29.09.2008, in W.P.No.21465 of 2008, considered the issue as regards the power of authorities in recovering such amount without enquiry and decided the same against petitioners therein. In the said Writ Petition, Government is also one of the petitioners.

¶8

We are in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the said Writ Petition. As an identical question falls for consideration in this case, and the subject matter is squarely covered by the earlier order, dated 29.09.2008, passed in W.P.No.21465 of 2008, this Writ Petition is also dismissed following the aforesaid order and for the reasons recorded therein.

¶9

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶10

____________________________

¶11

JUSTICE R.SUBHASH

¶12

REDDY

¶13

JUSTICE A. SHANKAR

¶14

NARAYANA

¶15

23^rd January, 2014 MD

¶16

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

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.38292 OF 2013

¶18

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

¶19

23^rd January, 2014

¶20

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Smt.Syeda Farhat Unnisa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Smt.Syeda Farhat Unnisa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs N. Krishna, Arhc 1008

The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Vs Shaik Raharnad

The Director General of Police, Vs P.Damodararao PC-335

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.