Allowed

Smt. Baikadi Mallamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Feb 2017WP/5754/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition for pension benefits regarding late B. Ramulu's unregularized services. Instead of keeping it pending, the court directed the respondents to act on the petitioners' existing representation and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 07.11.2016 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Smt. Baikadi Mallamma Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5754 OF 2017

¶3

Dated:20.02.2017

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt. Baikadi Mallamma, W/o. Late B. Ramulu, Aged about 65 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.12-32, Hanuman Nagar, Toopran (V & M), Medak District and others .. Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical And Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.5754 OF 2017

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Heard. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶13

Petitioners are family members of late B. Ramulu. Their claim is that even though the services of late B. Ramulu were utilised for long time by the respondent authorities and directions were issued by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), his services were not regularised in accordance with the scheme of regularisation notified by G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, and as a consequence, consequential benefits are not paid. While so, late B. Ramulu died on 28.01.2016. By relying on the earlier directions of the Tribunal, the petitioners submitted a representation, dated 07.11.2016, to the Senior Medical Officer, Ayurvedic Hospital, Toopran, Commissioner, Department of Ayush, Abids, Hyderabad, and Regional Deputy Director, Department of Ayush, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, respondents 4, 2 and 3, respectively, claiming monitory benefits. The grievance of the petitioners necessitating in institution of this Writ Petition is that so far no action is taken on the representation submitted by them and because of the delay in payment of monitory benefits, grave prejudice and hardship is caused to them.

¶14

Since the petitioners already submitted representation, which is yet to be acted upon by the respondent authorities, this Court is not inclined to keep the Writ Petition pending.

¶15

¶16

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation, dated 07.11.2016, submitted by the petitioners, after examination of the relevant issues, and pass appropriate orders as warranted by law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the 2^nd respondent is of the opinion that he is not competent to deal with the claim made by the petitioners, he may refer the issue to the Government within three weeks and on receipt of such proposal by the Government, the Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare, the 1^st respondent, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

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

¶18

P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:20.02.2017 KH

Smt. Baikadi Mallamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Baikadi Mallamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.S. Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Boga (Bogi alias Bogu) Siddamma, Vs Gurram Susheela died per L.Rs

A. Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana. Represented by its Principal

Sri a. Venu Babu Vs M/s. The State Bank of Hyderabad

Doli Bakkaiah, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Sirisilla Padma, W/o. Sirisilla Atmaram Vs The Union of India, being Represented by Secretary