Dismissed

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

Telangana HC5 Oct 2018WP/6892/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of a claim for pension computation. The court held that the Tribunal was justified in non-suiting the petitioner due to the case's antiquity and the unavailability of records, deeming the claim stale.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

D.V. Ramakrishna Rao, Vs The State of… — 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.6892 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER : (per SK,J)

¶4

The petitioner is the unsuccessful applicant in O.A.No.3401 of 2017 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. By order dated 28.12.2017, the Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. The prayer of the petitioner-applicant therein was to set aside the Memo dated 30.11.2017 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh and to direct the authorities to fix his pension since 27.11.1965, being the date of his regularisation in service.

¶5

The petitioner-applicant retired from service as a Town Planning Assistant in the office of the Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Rajahmundry, on 31.07.1996 upon attaining the age of superannuation. It is not in dispute that his services were regularised with effect from 27.11.1965. It appears that the impugned Memo dated 30.11.2017 was issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, in response to the representations dated 06.01.2017, 23.05.2017 and 23.06.2017 made by the petitioner-applicant. By the said Memo, the Government denied the request of the petitioner-applicant for revision of his seniority.

¶6

Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitionerapplicant, would contend that the issue raised by the petitioner-applicant in his representations was not with regard to his seniority but with regard to computation of his pension and retiral benefits duly taking into account the date 27.11.1965, being the date on which his services were

¶7

¶8

regularised. Learned counsel would however admit that no concrete measures were taken by the petitioner-applicant in relation to this issue though he retired as long back as on 31.07.1996. He would however state that the petitioner-applicant went on making representations in this regard.

¶9

In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in UNI ON OF I NDI A v. CHAMAN RANA¹ , it is not open to an employee to claim that he has been making representations time and again and allow a long period of time to elapse, whereby his claim would be rendered stale. In the counter-affidavit filed in this writ petition, the authorities stated that in the light of the antiquity of this case, records are not even available with them.

¶10

Under these circumstances, we find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal non-suiting the petitioner-applicant.

¶11

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶12

_______________

¶13

______________ M.GANGA RAO,J

¶14

Date:05.10.2018

¶15

¶16

1 (2018) 5 SCC 798

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

A.S. Priya, Vs A.P. Public Service Commission Represented by its Secretary Punnammathota

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sri B. Muthaiah

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs M.a.Hameed, Working as Administrative Officer

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs G.Yellamma

N.Ramesh Kumar Vs Telangana State Beverages Corporation Limited

K.Thirupathi Reddy Vs Telangana State Beverages Corporation Limited