Disposed

Mohd. Khalid Sarwar, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Dec 2021WP/15925/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired Additional Town Planner seeking to quash illegal disciplinary proceedings initiated over a decade ago for delaying pension benefits. The court directed the disciplinary authority to conclude the proceedings within four months, ordering the release of pension benefits if proceedings were not finalized.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to conclude disciplinary proceedings within four months; failure to do so mandates release of pension and dropping of charges.

Mohd. Khalid Sarwar, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15925 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohd. Khalid Sarwar,, S/o. Late lsmail Sanvar, aged about 63 years, Addl. Town Itgnlgf .^{(Head.^ Office)(Bgtd} ) _cHMC^{NJearTankbJnd, Hyderabad,} R/o. H.No.13-6-433177, Netaji Nagar Colony, Lungar House, Hydeiabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 lle^{plafeof Telangana,re!. by its Principal Secretary (M.A),Municipat} Administration and Urban Development Department, Sticretb'riat, at Hyderabad

¶12

1. Greater Hyderabad IMunicipal corporation, iep by its commissioner Hiderabaa.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ol the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court hay be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other ippropriate writ, order or direction, by declaring the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent vide charge lr/emo bearing No. 2696g/cA/A.c(Ayop3/GHtucl2o11-3772, dt.15-11-201'1 and its continuation, even without conducting the enquiry so far, as illegal, arbitrary and u ncon stitutiona I being violative of Artlcles 14, 1d and 21 oI constitution of lndia apart from contrary to law laid down by the Hon,ble supreme court of lndia in P. V. Ir/ahadevan Vs. I,4D.TN. Housing Board (2005 (6) scc 636) and quash the same by releasing the entire retiral benefits, with inieiest, to the petitioner.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the amount payable on Encasement of Earned Leave and 80% of retirement Gratuity in terms of G.o.Ms.No.1og7, dt.z2-6-2000 and 2nd proviso to Rule 52 (c) of Revised pension Rules, pending final disposal of the main W.P.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S. GOPAL RAO

¶18

counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FoR MUNlclpAL ADMINISTRATION AND URABAN DEVELOPMENT

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI L.DAYAKAR REDDY, SC FOR GHMC

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'B -E^{SRI JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR.SHA/ILI} WRIT PE,TITION^{No.l59 25 o1'2(\21}

¶22

OIlDER:

¶23

This wri^{petitionis being disposed of with the consent ol both} the partles at^{tt 3 stage of admission'}

¶24

This wri^{petition is filedseekingthe following relief:} ".... tr^{issue a writ in the nature of Mandarnusor any} other^{i ppropriatewrit, orderor direction, by declaring} the d sciplinary^{proceedingsinitiated by the 2"d} respon lent vide^{chargememo beaiing No} 269693AlA.C(AyOP3iGHMCl201l-3772''Jated 15.11.011 and^{itscontinuation, even rvithotrt} s6nflur ting^{the enquiry so far' as illegal, arbitrarl'and} unconr titutional^{being violativeolArticlesl4' 16 & 2l} of Cor stitution^{ol lndia apart fromcontrar)'to larv laid} down ry the^{Hon'bleSupremeCourtol India in P'"} Mahac :van^{v. MD., T.N. Housing Board [(2005)6 SCU} 636) a rd^{quash the same by releasing the entire retiral} benefir;. with^{interest,to the petitionerand to pass such} other c'der^{or ordersas this Hon'bleCourtrnay deen-r flt} and pr,^{per in the circumstancesof the case' '}

¶25

Heard lt arned^{counsel appearingfor the petitioner and the} leamed Govern^{lent Pleader appearing for the respondents'}

¶26

It has be^{)n contendedby the petitioner that he had retired from} service^{on 31.( 1.2017as a Additional TownPlanner'1'he grievance} of the petition:r^{is that while he was in service'the disciplinary} authority^{had issued a charge memo on l5'1120 lland due to} pendency ofth:^{disciplinaryproceedings'the disciplinaryauthoritfis} not paying^{pen: ion and pensionary benefits'}

¶27

¶28

AKS.J W.P.No.l5925 2021

¶29

Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to conclude the discipiinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a reasonable period of time.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008, the disciplinary authority must conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable period of time and, in respect of grave charges, the disciplinary authority nrust conclude the disciplinary proceedings within six months and in respect of minor charges within three months. In the instant case, though more rhan ten years have lapsed, the disciplinary authority is not concluding the disciplinary proceedings.

¶31

Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had conter.rded that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008 within a reasonable period of tirne and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶32

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that the disciplinary authority would conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a reasonable period of time.

¶33

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the disciplinary authority to conclude the

¶34

--.?

¶35

AKS.] \ L\o 15925 l02l

¶36

disciplinary p oceedings initiated against the petitioner vide charge memo dated I ;.11.2011 within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of for r moths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the respondents shall release pension and pensionary benefits in fav rur of the petitioner by duly dropping the disciplinary proceedings in tiated against the petitioner.

¶37

With tht above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶38

Pending niscellaneous petitions, ifany, shall stancl closed.

¶39

SDA MOHO.SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \V'

//TRUE coPY/ t

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principalse retary (M.A), Municipal Administration and tJrban Develooment Department, Sta' : of Telanqana, Secretariat. at Hvderabad 2. The C^onmi-ssion 1, Greatei Hyderabad Municipal-Corporatio.r, Hyderabad

¶44

One CC to Sri S. Gopal Rao. Advocate fOpUCi

¶45

Two CCs to GP f rr Municipal Adminlstration aird Urban Dev(llopment, _ lign ^Court lor^{thr Stateof Tetangana at Hyderabad.} [OUT] !. 9n" QQ !o^{Sf L. )ayakarReddy; SC for GHMC,} topijol^'

¶46