Petitioner challenged non-sanction of pension. Court held that the 2004 rejection order being unchallenged, no relief was permissible. Petition dismissed with liberty to challenge the impugned order.
Petition disposed; no order as to costs; liberty granted to challenge rejection proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 1934 of 2010
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for sanction of ‘Swatanthra Sainik Sanman Pension’ though the petitioner produced all required documents and inspite of directions passed in WP.No.1070 & 1927 of 1998.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter stating that the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide proceedings dt.26.02.2004, as such, no relief can be granted.
It is to be seen that the respondents have considered and rejected the case of the petitioner vide proceedings dt.26.02.2004. But the said order which was passed in the year 2004 is not challenged in this writ petition which was filed in the year 2010. In view of the same, no relief can be granted in the writ petition. However if petitioner is still aggrieved, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the said proceedings dt.26.02.2004.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
__________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
13.11.2019 tk.
2
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 1934 of 2010
13.11.2019
tk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed in 2010 regarding pension sanction should be allowed when the rejection order of 2004 remains unchallenged.
Petitioner
Respondent 1
Respondent 2
A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
