Disposed

Smt. Vinjamoori Manemma / N. Bhanumathi v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Telangana HC5 Feb 2020WP/6443/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition challenging inaction regarding a request to correct the petitioner's name in Provident Fund records due to marriage. The court directed the authority to consider the pending representation within eight weeks and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent to consider the representation dated 25.07.2017 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks. Disposed of the Writ Petition.

Smt. Vinjamoori Manemma / N. Bhanumathi Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

W.P.No.6443 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 1^st respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner dt 25.07.2017 for correction of the name of the petitioner as ‘Vinjamoori Manemma’ instead of ‘N.Bhanumathi’ in Provident Funds Records bearing PF.No. AP/32127/13452 of the 1^st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violation principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1^st respondent authority to record the name of the petitioner as ‘Vinjamoori Manemma’ instead of ‘N.Bhanumathi’ in the above PF records and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶6

Heard learned counsel on either side.

¶7

It is the case of the petitioner that her name was initially recorded as “N.Bhanumathi” in the Provident Fund record and after her marriage, her name was changed to “Vinjamoori Manemma”. But, as the 1^st respondent has not considered her case for effecting the said change, she submitted a representation to the 1^st respondent on 25.7.2017. But, so far, no orders have been passed thereon.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing

¶9

the 1^st respondent to consider the representation dated 25.07.2017 submitted by the petitioner.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent contended that since the representation submitted by the petitioner is pending with the 1^st respondent, the 1^st respondent would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶11

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider the representation dated 25.07.2017 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶13

closed.

¶14

________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶15

Date: 5.2.2020 rkk

Smt. Vinjamoori Manemma / N. Bhanumathi v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vinjamoori Manemma / N. Bhanumathi v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation

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

Hotel Swagath Vs Union of India

Kola Muthyalu Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

M/s. Charminar Foods Vs The Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited And 3 Others

Md. Chand Pasha Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited And 3 Others

Bispally Yadagiri Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited and 4 Others

Kumari Sunita Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited adn 4 others