Dismissed

The General Manager, v. G. Ganesh

Telangana HC23 Nov 2018WP/42371/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the SPMCIL General Manager challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order, holding that the order pertained solely to the Government of India and not the corporation, thus denying the petitioner a basis for grievance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed; neither SPMCIL nor its officials shall be held responsible for the grievance.

The General Manager, Vs G. Ganesh — 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.42371 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER : (per SK,J)

¶4

The General Manager, Security Printing Press, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, the second respondent in O.A.No.478 of 2013 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2018 passed therein.

¶5

Sri M.Surender Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel on caveat for the first respondent, the applicant in the O.A., would however submit that the petitioner can have no grievance with regard to the order passed in the O.A. as the same is directed only against the first respondent in the O.A. who is the Joint Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶6

The admitted facts are that the first respondent-applicant was appointed as a Head Checker in the year 1983 and grew in rank to the post of Inspector (Control) by 2001. This was at a time when the Security Printing Press was under the control of the Government of India. It was however made into an independent corporation on 13.01.2006. In terms of the agreement settled at that point of time, employees recruited before 01.01.2004 were eligible for pension as per Rule 37-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Employees who opted to remain in the service of the newly formed corporation, viz., Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL), were to be treated as having retired from the service of the Government of India and were eligible for pension as stated supra. The first respondent-applicant was one such

¶7

¶8

employee who was absorbed permanently in the service of the SPMCIL with effect from 01.11.2008. He filed the subject O.A. in the year 2013 in relation to the pensionary benefits due to him from 01.11.2008 onwards. This prayer obviously pertained to the service rendered by him prior to absorption in the service of the SPMCIL as it is an admitted fact that he retired from the service of the Corporation only on 31.05.2015 well after institution of the subject O.A.

¶9

In that view of the matter, we are in agreement with the submission of the learned senior counsel that the SPMCIL can have no grievance with regard to the relief granted by the Tribunal vide the order under challenge.

¶10

Sri G.Chandrashekar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would however inform this Court that alleging disobedience to the order under challenge, a contempt notice has been issued to the General Manager, SPMCIL.

¶11

Sri M.Surender Rao, learned senior counsel, would inform this Court that his client is only interested in pursuing the matter with the Government of India with regard to the payment of the pension for the service rendered by him during the period the Security Printing Press was under the control of the Government of India and that no relief would be sought against the SPMCIL or its officials in relation to that period.

¶12

Accepting this statement, we close the writ petition making it clear that neither SPMCIL nor any of its officials shall be held responsible in relation to the grievance of the first respondent-applicant in O.A.No.478 of 2013 which was in the context of the service rendered by him at the time when the Security Printing Press was under the control of the Government

¶13

¶14

of India and his claim in relation to the pension and pensionary benefits due for the said period.

¶15

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No

order as to costs.

_______________

SANJAY KUMAR,J

______________ M.GANGA RAO,J

¶20

Date:23.11.2018

¶21

The General Manager, v. G. Ganesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager, v. G. Ganesh

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

A.Prema Swarupa Rani,Vizianagaram,and 2 Vs Govt.of Ap,Prl.Scy,Agrl.,Hyd,and 2

Union of India Vs Mullapudi Suresh, S/o M.Narayana

The Union of India Vs K.F.J.Vidyalankar

T.S. Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Vs E. Santhosh Kumar

A P Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. Vs E Santhosh Kumar

The Regional Manager Vs K.G. Krishnaiah