Disposed

D.Bhadra Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Oct 2018WP/668/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed by applicants seeking implementation of a Tribunal order regarding pay scale arrears. The court directed the respondent authorities in Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, to implement the Tribunal order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondent authorities to implement the Tribunal order dated 08.08.2016 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

D.Bhadra Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — 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.668 OF 2017

¶3

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

¶4

This writ petition was filed by the applicants in O.A.No.3035 of 2016 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking implementation of the order dated 08.08.2016 passed therein. By the said order, the Tribunal directed the authorities to grant the pay scale of Rs.200-240/210 with effect from 01.04.1975 to the petitioners-applicants and complete the process of re-fixation, payment of arrears etc. within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶5

Though the learned Government Pleader for Services, State of Telangana, took time on 04.04.2017 claiming that a writ petition had been filed against the aforestated order of the Tribunal, he would concede today before this Court that he has no information as to any writ petition having been filed and, if so, the result thereof.

¶6

Sri Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants, would inform this Court that the petitioners-applicants also have no information of any writ petition having been filed against the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.3035 of 2016.

¶7

We are therefore constrained to presume that the said order has attained finality. Be it noted that the Tribunal granted six weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order for compliance therewith but despite passage of over two years, no steps seem to have been taken by the authorities for implementation of the said order.

¶8

¶9

In the light of the commitment and undertaking given by the learned former Advocate General for the State of Telangana to a Division Bench of this Court, comprising the then Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao, which was duly recorded vide order dated 30.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.31905 of 2016, to the effect that the orders passed by the Tribunal at a point of time when it was in existence even for the State of Telangana, unless varied or set aside, would be implemented by the State of Telangana, it is not open to the respondent authorities to ignore the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.3035 of 2016.

¶10

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondent authorities to abide by and implement the order dated 08.08.2016 passed in O.A.No.3035 of 2016 in true letter and spirit within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶12

_________________

¶13

_________________

¶14

Date: 08.10.2018 IBL

D.Bhadra Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Bhadra Reddy 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

D.V. Ramakrishna Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs G.Yellamma

N.Ramesh Kumar Vs Telangana State Beverages Corporation Limited

B.Narsimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana

S.Bhaskar, Ciricilla Dist and 14 Others Vs Prl. Secretary, Education Dept., Hyd and 3 Others

Md. Anees Ahmed, and 19 Others, Vs Prl.Secy., Education Dept., Hyd., and 5 Others