Disposed

V. Raju v. Telangana State Pollution Control Board

Telangana HC13 Feb 2019WP/2088/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking direction to declare inaction of 1st respondent regarding petitioner's pensionary benefits claim illegal and direct payment of benefits for period 1980-2000. Court directed 1st respondent to consider petitioner's representations and pass orders within six weeks. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to consider representations dated 29.06.2017, 31.5.2018, 09.07.2018 and pass orders within six weeks. No costs.

V. Raju Vs Telangana State Pollution… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.P.No.2088 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶4

“…to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1^st respondent in considering the petitioner’s representation dated 29-06-2017 requesting 1^st respondent to count petitioner service at 2^nd respondent from 24-07-1980 to Feb, 2000 for the purpose of payment of pensionary benefits for the services rendered at the 2^nd respondent department as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to pay the pensionary benefits for the period w.e.f 24-07-1980 to Feb, 2000 for the services rendered at the 2^nd respondent Department and pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶5

Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel appearing for

¶6

the petitioner and Sri P.Shiva Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶7

It is the case of the petitioner that initially he was appointed as Watchman in the 2^nd respondent on 24.07.1980 and his services were regularized. While so, the 2^nd respondent deputed him to work in the 1^st respondent-Pollution Control Board vide proceedings dated 08.08.2001. He was absorbed in the 1^st respondent vide proceedings dated 09-08-2005. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation vide proceedings dated 31-12-2017.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made representations to the 1^st respondent

¶9

on 29.06.2017, 31.5.2018 and 09.07.2018 seeking to count the service rendered by him in the 2^nd respondent from 24-07-1980 to February, 2000 for payment of pensionary benefits, but so far no orders have been passed thereon.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submits that the 1^st respondent would consider the representations submitted by the petitioner and would pass appropriate orders.

¶11

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if a direction is given to the 1^st respondent to consider the representations made by the petitioner.

¶12

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on 29.06.2017, 31.5.2018 and 09.07.2018 and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶13

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶14

________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶15

13^th February, 2019 rkk

V. Raju v. Telangana State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Raju v. Telangana State Pollution Control Board

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

Mohan Rao Vs Union of India, Rep. by Prl.Secy., New Delhi, and 5 Others

V. Rajitha Vs State of Telangana

Ch Vijaya Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Rafeequnnisa Vs Chief Executive Officer

U.Chandrasekhar Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

G.Srinivas, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments