Dismissed

The Government of India, v. B. Uday Shankar Rao

Telangana HC6 Nov 2018WP/31576/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order granting grade pay benefits to postal department employees. The Tribunal had relied on an allowed Madras High Court judgment. After the Supreme Court confirmed the High Court judgment via civil appeals, the Court found no independent grounds to adjudicate and dismissed the petition. Generation Date: 06.11.2018.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed; no order as to costs.

The Government of India, Vs B. Uday… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON No.31576 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶4

This writ petition by the Government of India and its authorities in the Postal Department arose out of the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.296 of 2014. The said O.A. was filed by respondents 1 to 15 herein for grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- with effect from the date of completion of four years in the Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/-. By the order dated 14.09.2015, presently under challenge, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment dated 06.09.2010 of the Madras High Court in W.P.No.13225 of 2010, which was followed by it earlier in O.A.No.1051 of 2010, and allowed the O.A. directing the authorities to grant the benefits to respondents 1 to 15-applicants as were granted to those covered by the order in O.A.No.1051 of 2010. Aggrieved by this direction, the authorities preferred the present writ petition.

¶5

Upon being informed that the judgment relied upon by the Tribunal has been stayed by the Supreme Court, this Court granted interim suspension of the order under challenge on 20.09.2016. Thereupon, the contesting respondents-applicants filed W.V.M.P.No.564 of 2017 to vacate the said order. As it was brought to the notice of this Court that there was no stay in operation in so far as the judgment of the Madras High Court was concerned as was stated before this Court at the time of passing of the interim order, this Court, vide order dated 13.02.2017, vacated the interim order dated 20.09.2016.

¶6

¶7

While so, Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents-applicants, would now inform this Court that Civil Appeal No.3893 of 2011, arising out of the judgment of the Madras High Court in W.P.No.13225 of 2010, along with SLP (Civil) Nos.23513 & 3189 of 2015 and 17576 of 2017, were dismissed by order dated 10.10.2017.

¶8

In that view of the matter, as the Tribunal merely followed the edict of the Madras High Court in the aforestated judgment which now stands confirmed, we find no grounds to entertain this writ petition for independent adjudication.

¶9

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶10

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶11

No order as to costs.

¶12

SANJAY KUMAR,J

M. GANGA RAO, J
Date: 06.11.2018
IBL

The Government of India, v. B. Uday Shankar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of India, v. B. Uday Shankar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Gopalakrishna Vs Mr. K. Lakshman Rao

Dr. D.R.Yadagiri Vs Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad

Smt. J.Y.Nissi Niharika Vs The Commissioner and Director of School Education and Ex-Officio State Project Director (Tssa)

N. Pullaiah, Vs The State Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

V.Venkatesh, Vs The State of Telangana

Gadepalli Venkata Ramana Murty, Vs State of Telangana