Disposed

Chinthakuntla Ramchandra Reddy, v. The Joint Secretary to Government of India

Telangana HC12 Nov 2018WP/4916/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus directing respondents to grant pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Scheme. The Court noted that the Central Government had rejected claims citing failure to meet eligibility conditions. Petitioners were granted liberty to challenge the rejection.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners given liberty to challenge the Central Government orders rejecting their pension claims.

Chinthakuntla Ramchandra Reddy, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO Writ Petition No.4916 of 2009

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

In this petition, the petitioners seek Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting pension to the petitioners from the date of their applications under Swatantra Sainik Samman Scheme, 1980 in spite of recommendations of Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Letter No.58500/FF.III/08, dated 27.11.2008, Letter No.61303/FF.III/2008 dated 17.12.2008 and Letter No.F.1490/2008 dated 12.06.2008 respectively and also in respect of last representations of the petitioners dated 20.12.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to sanction pension to the petitioners.

¶4

1. Respondents appeared and filed counter.

¶5

It should be noted that in WPMPNo.6443 of 2009, this Court directed the 1^st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 20.12.2008 and dispose of the same in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶6

When the matter came up for hearing today, learned counsel for respondents by producing the copies of the orders dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Central Government, would submit that pursuant to the above interim direction of this Court, the matter has been considered and orders have been passed in respect of three petitioners. A perusal of copies of the order would show that mentioning certain reasons ultimately the concerned authority held that since the petitioners have

¶7

¶8

failed to fulfill the eligibility conditions and evidentiary criteria prescribed under the Scheme, the claims of the petitioners have not been found acceptable and thus rejected.

¶9

1. In view of aforesaid orders, the petitioners are given liberty to challenge them by way of appropriate proceedings, if they are so advised.

¶10

1. With this observation, this writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶11

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶12

closed.

¶13

_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶14

Date:12.11.2018 Murthy

Chinthakuntla Ramchandra Reddy, v. The Joint Secretary to Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinthakuntla Ramchandra Reddy, v. The Joint Secretary to Government of India

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

Vinod Kumar Aswa Vs Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi Chada and Another

Mamidi Suryanarayana, Srikakulam Town and District Vs State, Rep. by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and Another

M/S. Hyderabad Chemicals Supplies (P) Ltd., Hyd.,and Another Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad

Eerothu Veerababu and 5 Others Vs State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P Anothers

The State of a.P., rep. by P.P. Vs Mohd. Asfar Ali

Paladugu Anjaiah Vs Gottipati Narasimhaswamy