Allowed

Chada Narasimha Reddy v. The Government of India

Telangana HC6 Nov 2019WP/14325/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension scheme. Court directed the State of Telangana to send re-verification reports to the Central Government if not already sent and for the Central Government to consider them after noticing petitioners, constituted pending applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 to send re-verification reports if not sent and Respondent No. 1 to consider them after issuing notice to petitioners.

Chada Narasimha Reddy Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14325 OF 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking direction to respondent No.1 to consider the claims of petitioners for grant of pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension scheme 1980 as per recommendations of respondents 2 and 3 without reference to impugned letters dated 26-04-2010, 2904-2010, 20-01-2010, 26-04-2010, 26-04-2010, 03-05-2010, 16-04-2010, 26-04-2010, 05-02-2010, 03-05-2010, 20-042010, 17-05-2010, 03-05-2010 and 20-05-2010.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of Sri Chada Narsimha Reddy S/o.Late Anantha Reddy (petitioner No.1), Sri Kesireddy Narayana Reddy S/o.Ramchandra Reddy (petitioner No.7) and Sri Rekula Narasimha Reddy S/o.Late Venkatram Narsimha Reddy (petitionerNo.9), re-verification reports have been sent to the Central Government for grant of freedom fighters pension under Central Scheme.

¶5

Sri K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 basing on counter affidavit submits that since there are large scale irregularities, respondent No.1 requested the 2^nd respondent by way of impugned letters to send re-verification reports, as such, the came cannot be faulted.

¶6

¶7

It is to be seen that the impugned letters are issued by respondent No.1 addressed to respondent No.2 for sending reverification reports. Learned counsel for petitioners have also produced some of the letters addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, wherein and whereby re-verification reports have been sent in respect of some petitioners as stated supra.

¶8

Since learned counsel for the petitioners says that respondent No.2 is shown as Government of Andhra Pradesh, as per Section 104 of A.P. Reorganization Act the same should be substituted as State of Telangana.

¶9

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to send re-verification reports as directed by respondent No.1 in the impugned letters, if not already sent and respondent No.1 to consider the same, after issuing notice to the petitioners, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

¶10

Office is to take steps for substituting the State of Telangana in place of State of Andhra Pradesh in the cause title as per Section 104 of the A.P.Reorganization Act, 2014.

¶11

____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J

¶12

06-11-2019 Nvl

¶13

¶14

Chada Narasimha Reddy v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chada Narasimha Reddy v. The Government of India

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

M/S Jkl Engineers and Consultants, Hyd Vs Sri Venkateswara Neuro and Super Speciality Hospitals Pvt. L

Gadapa Prasad Rao Vs The State of Telangana

N.Lakshmi Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Sri Thota Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Cheruku Kalyani, Suryapet Dist Vs Regional Manager, S.B.I., Secbad and Ano

Pamula Sangaiah, Vs The Government of India, represented by the Deputy