Disposed

Chennavula Venkata Subbamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary

Telangana HC26 Aug 2015WP/27166/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking pension under Indiramma Adarsha Gramam Scheme complained of illegal exclusion and inaction. Court directed Mandal Parishad Development Officer to decide pending representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent to pass orders on representations for grant of pension within 4 weeks.

Chennavula Venkata Subbamma, Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

¶3

Present

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.27166 of 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

Chennavula Venkata Subbamma, W/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged about 75 years, Occ: Agricultural Coolie, R/o. Mopad Village, Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District & 20 others

¶8

.. Petitioners

¶9

AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.27166 of 2015

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

The petitioners claim to be the residents of Mopad Village in Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District. They claim that they are poor people and most of them are aged persons and have no sustenance and, therefore, require the assistance from the Government under the ‘Indiramma Adarsha Gramam’ Scheme notified vide G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 17.09.2014. According to the petitioners, though they are eligible for sanction of pension, but illegally, their names are excluded. Aggrieved by the same, they have submitted representations praying to grant pension. The representations of the petitioners were forwarded by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Ongole, Prakasam District (3^rd respondent) to the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District (4^th respondent) on 26.03.2015, but so far, no action is taken. Aggrieved by the inaction in considering the request of the petitioners for grant of pensions under the scheme, this writ petition is filed.

¶16

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Assistant Government Pleader agreed for disposal of the writ petition

¶17

by directing the 4^th respondent to pass orders on the representations submitted by the petitioners.

¶18

3. Having regard to the submissions made and in view of the fact that the representations of the petitioners are pending consideration, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without expressing any opinion, directing the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District (4^th respondent) to pass orders on the representations of the petitioners for grant of pensions in pursuant to the proceedings of the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Ongole, Prakasam District (3^rd respondent) in R.C.No.A5/573/2014, dated 26.03.2015, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶19

_________________

¶20

Date: 26^th August, 2015 KL

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.27166 of 2015

¶23

Date: 26^th August, 2015

¶24

Chennavula Venkata Subbamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chennavula Venkata Subbamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary

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

Mandhapalli Shobha, Vs The State of Telangana

D. Srinivas Reddy Vs The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal

M. Sathi Babu, Vs Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple

Kolli Appa Rao S/o Late Atchanna Agriculture Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mutyala Satyavathi,W/O Satyanarayana, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

N. Ramachandra Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana