Disposed

N. Sampath Kumar, v. Aptrade Promotion Corporation Ltd.

Telangana HC6 Mar 2020WP/22715/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding delayed payment of retirement benefits. Instead of granting a writ of mandamus, the court directed the respondent Corporation to place the case before its Board within one month to address the petitioner's financial hardship.

What did the court decide?

The case was directed to be placed before the Board of APTPC within one month of submission of a certified copy of the order.

N. Sampath Kumar, Vs Aptrade Promotion… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF I/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH^CHAUHAN

¶6

.\D

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 22715 OF 201s

¶9

Between:

¶10

N. Sampath Kumar, s/o Late N.lVlalliah, aged 58 years Occ: Asst. Manager, O/o A.P.Trade Promotion Corporation r/o H.No. 12-8-342, AllagaddaBaviNear A P. Rice Stores, Secunderabad 500017

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

AP Trade Promotion Corporation Ltd., (An Undertaking of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh) Regd. Office: 5-10-174, 2nofloor ShakkarBhavan, FatehMaidan Road Hyderabad 500004 Represented by its Vice Chairman & N/anagrng Director

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or appropriate writ

¶16

(i) declare the Regulation 49 of A.P. Trade Promotion Corporation Ltd (CDA) Regulations, .. so far as denying the payment of retirement benefits to an employee on attaining the age of superannuation is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity, 1972;

¶17

ii) declare the action of the respondent' in not releasing the retiral benefits to which the petitioner is entitled to as illegal and arbitrary;

¶18

iii) and consequently direct the respondent to release the gratuity and other retrial benefits alongwith 12% interest consequent to petitioner's retirement on par with Sri T.PrasadaRao, Assistant Manager;

¶19

WPMP. NO: 29346 OF 2015

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the gratuity to the petitioner.

¶21

IANO: 1OF2 018

¶22

Betwee n:

¶23

N.. Sampath.Kumar, s/o Late N.Malliah, aged 58 years Occ: Asst. Manager, O/o A.P.Trade Promotion Corporation r/o H.No. 1i-B-342, AllagaddaBaviN"eai A.P. Rice Stores, Secunderabad 5000'17

¶24

...PETITIONER

¶25

AND

¶26

AP Trade Promotion Corporation Ltd.., (An Undertaking of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh) Regd. Office: 5-1 0-17 4, 2no fl oor ShakkarBhavan, FatehMaidan Road Hyderabad 500004 Represented by its Vice Chairman & lr/anaging Director

¶27

...RESPONDENT

¶28

Telangana Trade promotion Corporation Ltd.,^(An Undertaking of Govt. of Telan[ana) Regd.'Office: 5-10-1'74,2ND Floor, ShakkarBhava"n, FatehMaidan Road, Hyderabad 500 004, Represented by its Vice Chairman & [\rlanaging Director

¶29

..IMPLEADE RESPONDENT NO. 2

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^permit the petitioner to implead Telangana trade^promotion corporation Ltd. the^proposed respondents No. 2 as^party respondent.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. P. SUDHEER RAO FOR SMT. K UDAYA SRI

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent:SRl. P. V. S. S. S. RAMA RAO

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

¶35

H(,t&..1.1R..1 * P \o.:: i l: ol :t)15

¶36

ORDER: (Pei thc Hon'ble the chi.r Justice Sri Rashvendra sinsh chauhan)

¶37

The petitioner has prayed for the following relief from this

¶38

Court :-

¶39

"For the reqsons stqted in the accompanving alrtdauit, it is therefore praAed that the Ho'ble CourT mag be pleased to issue an order direction or u)rlt particularl!! one tn the nature of a writ of rrtandarrtus or appropnate LDit

¶40

(i) (leclare the Regulatlon 49 oI A.P. Trade Pronbtion Corporation Lld (L-DA) Regulotions, in so,fizr os denging the paument of retirement benelits lo ant employee on attaining the age of superannuation as il[egal, arbttrary and contrary to Section 4 of Pagtnent of GratuitA, 1972; (ii) deelare the ocflon of the respo/tdent in not releasing the retiral benefts to t.ullich the pet.itioner is ertitled lo as tllegal and arbttrarA;

¶41

(iii) and conserVtentlA direct lhe respondenl to release the gratuitA and otller rettraL beneJits along uith 12a,'o interest consequent to petitioner's retirement on por wtth Si T. Prasada Rao, Asslstanr Mdnager;

¶42

(iu) orrd pass such further or other orders as tte Hon'ble Courl deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case,'

¶43

The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Sudheer Kumar, is that despite the fact that the petitioner is entitled to release of his retiral benefits, the same is not being released by the respondent-Corporation.

¶44

However, Mr. P.V.S.S.S. Rama Rao, the learned counsei for the respondent-Corporation, submits that by order dated 26.12.2079, issued bv the Principal Secretary to Government, III & Commerce (Vig) Department, a decision has already been taken to merely consider 570 cut in all the terminal benefits of the petitioner, and to have the matter placed before the Board of AF/IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks two months time to carry out the said step.

¶45

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the fact that the petitioner has already retired, considering his financial hardship, a period of two months is too

¶46

long. Therefore, he prays that the period should be shortened by this Court.

¶47

Considering the fact that the retired person has to face financial hardship, this Court directs that the case of the petitioner shall be placed before the Board of APTPC, within a period of one month from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.

¶48

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶49

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

The miscellaneous petitions pending, il any, shall stand

¶51

closed.

¶52

SD/. T. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY//

¶53

SEC ION OFFICER

¶54

To,

¶55

The Vice chairman & l,4anaging Director, Ap rrade promotion corooration Ltd.. (An Undertaking of Govt of Andhra pradesh) Regd. Office. S_lrO_1i4, iidfrooi ShakkarBhavan, FatehMaidan Road Hyderabad 500004.

¶56

One CC to Smt. K. Udaya Sri, Advocate (OPUC)

¶57

One CC to Sri. P.V.S.S.S. Rama Rao, Advocate (OPUC)

¶58

Two CD Copies.

PMI

{

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610312020

ORDER

WP.No.22715 of 2015

o -. TE
2
.-s

troL \ tt,r
'J- + /
i.^
H '..i

¶67

Disposing of the WP Wlthout costs.

¶68

.ifr) u

N. Sampath Kumar, v. Aptrade Promotion Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Sampath Kumar, v. Aptrade Promotion Corporation Ltd.

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

Naresh Singh Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Shaik Hafeez Vs The State of Telangana

Meeramydeen Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and Another Vs Manchala Anjaiah

G. Jalandar Vs The State of Telangana

M.A. Quadeer Vs High Court for the State of Telangana