Dismissed

K.Sree Rama Murthy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal

Telangana HC4 Mar 2014WP/6033/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking the release of pensionary benefits by regularizing a break period from 1988 to 1990. The Court held the petition devoid of merits as the respondents had not yet fixed the pensionary benefits despite the Tribunal's direction, making the release of benefits an antecedent condition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merits pending fixation of pensionary benefits.

K.Sree Rama Murthy Vs The Government of… — 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.6033 of 2014

¶4

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

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 11-09-2013 in O.A.No.2590 of 2013 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to release the petitioner’s pension with all benefits by regularizing the period from 01-08-1988 to

¶6

13-12-1990 effecting the pensionary benefits accordingly in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.1247 dated 18-10-2011 and consequential orders passed by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents vide CCLA’s Ref.No.N1/1316/2011 dated 25-11-2011 and D.Dis.(A2)/320/2011, dated 22-12-2011.

¶7

2. Heard.

¶8

3. The petitioner herein filed O.A.No.2590 of 2013 seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize the period from 01-081988 to 13-12-1990 and fix his pensionary benefits accordingly in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.1247 dated

¶9

18-10-2011 by declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing and paying the pensionary benefits as illegal. The said O.A. was disposed of directing the respondents to fix pensionary benefits of the applicant in view of condonation of break period from 01-08-1988 to 13-12-1990 through G.O.Rt.No.1247, dated 18-

¶10

10-2011 and on account of consequential proceedings issued by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents condoning the break period.

¶11

4. With regard to the relief sought for by the petitioner in the O.A., a positive direction as sought for has been given by the Tribunal. But, however, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition for releasing of the pensionary benefits. We are unable to accept the contention of the writ petitioner with regard to the release of the pensionary benefits. Unless the respondents fix the pensionary benefits, the question of releasing the pensionary benefits to the petitioner does not arise. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits.

¶12

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶15

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶16

March 04, 2014

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.6033 of 2014

¶21

March 04, 2014

¶22

K.Sree Rama Murthy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sree Rama Murthy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal

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

P.H.v.R.Tagore Vs The commissioner and Director of intermediate Education

K.v.Nagaprabhu Kumar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V.Nagaraju Vs Union of India

Y.s. Prasad, Joint Commissioner of Labour Vs Commissioner of Labour, State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhukya Dharma , Dharmiya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Vs C.Renuka