Allowed

C.Seetharamaiah v. The Principal Accountant General (Audit-I)

Telangana HC18 Sept 2014WP/8118/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a retired employee seeking the difference in the enhanced commuted value of pension. Relying on a prior judgment in W.P.No.16439 of 2000 interpreting Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services Commutation of Pension Rules, 1981, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed respondents to pay the amount within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to difference of enhanced commuted pension; respondents directed to pay within eight weeks.

C.Seetharamaiah Vs The Principal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.8118 OF 2003

¶3

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

¶4

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to call for the records relating to the Order, dated 18.11.2002, in Original Application No.286 of 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and consequently direct the respondents herein to calculate the difference of the enhanced commuted value of the pension as it was done in the case of the respondent in W.P.No.16439 of 2000 and after such calculation disburse the same to the petitioner herein.

¶5

2. Heard both sides.

¶6

3. The issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra as Rule 10 of Central Civil Services Commutation of Pension Rules, 1981 (for short, ‘the Rules’) came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.16439 of 2000, on 27.06.2001, whereunder it is held thus-

¶7

“For the reasons aforementioned, the judgment of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the respondent shall be entitled to the difference of the enhanced amount of the commuted pension in terms of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services Commutation of Pension Rules, 1981. Such amount, if not already paid, shall be paid to the respondent at an early date and not later than four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.”

¶8

In the present case also, the petitioner retired from service on

¶9

28.02.1993. The Official Memorandum, dated 27.10.1997 came into force enhancing the pension. The present case is squarely covered by the aforementioned order of this Court.

¶10

4. Following the said order, we give the same direction to the respondents herein holding that the petitioner is entitled to the difference of enhanced amount of the commuted pension in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules.

¶11

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned Order, dated 18.11.2002, in O.A.No.286 of 2002 passed by the Tribunal and the respondents are directed to pay the amount, if not already paid, at an early date and not later than eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶12

JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶13

___________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶14

Date:18.09.2014 INL

C.Seetharamaiah v. The Principal Accountant General (Audit-I)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Seetharamaiah v. The Principal Accountant General (Audit-I)

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

Y.Rajasekhar Reddy.Medak. Vs D.R.Ordnance Factories BOARD.KOLKOTA.AND1

P.B.K. Murthy Vs Ministry of Railways

Smt. Dornala Vidya Praveena, Vs The Honorable Consumer Disputes Redressal

Ellina Prasantakumar , Raja Vs Smt. Pasumarthy Venkataramana

Koneru Anand Vs Government of India

Deputy Executive Engineer, Vs Naram Nukaraju