Disposed

K.Subhas Chandar Reddy v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC8 Jan 2020WP/515/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition at the admission stage. The court directed the respondents to conclude pending disciplinary proceedings against a retired petitioner within four months, or release his pensionary benefits immediately.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to conclude disciplinary proceedings within four months; otherwise release petitioner's pension and pensionary benefits.

K.Subhas Chandar Reddy Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO.515 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take final decision on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer during December, 2017 and release all retiral benefits of the petitioner immediately by declaring their inaction in this regard as perverse, arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for parties.

¶6

It has been contended by the petitioner that he has retired from service on 30.09.2015 and the respondents are not settling his terminal benefits and pensionary benefits on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner further contended that the Enquiry Officer had conducted enquiry and submitted report in December, 2017 and in spite of lapse of two years from the date of submission of the enquiry report, the respondents are neither concluding the disciplinary proceedings nor releasing the pension and pensionary benefits to him.

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner has already retired from service, it is the 1^st respondent who must conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner contended that appropriate

¶8

¶9

orders be passed in the writ petition directing the 1^st respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a reasonable period of time, preferably within four months, failing which the respondents be directed to release the pension and pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner.

¶10

Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent has informed the Court that the 1^st respondent would conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a reasonable period of time, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

This Court, having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings said to have been initiated against the petitioner within a reasonable period of time, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within four months, the petitioner is entitled for pension and pensionary benefits.

¶12

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶13

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

¶15

8^th January, 2020 v v

K.Subhas Chandar Reddy v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Subhas Chandar Reddy v. State of Telangana and another

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

S.Janardhan Vs The State of Telangana

Racha Uppalaiah Vs The Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited and 3 others

Chippakurthy Kanakaiah Vs The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Limited and 3 others

Smt. E.Ratnamma, Hyderabad Vs Chief Executive, Nfc, Hyderabad and Another

Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Vs Smt. B. Anasuya, and Another

D. Prabhuvaran, Vs The State of Telangana