Disposed

T.Venkateswarlu v. the Vice Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC13 Sept 2021WP/20310/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged calculation of his ex-gratia sum and withholding of retirement benefits against the Respondent Corporation. The Court disposed of the matter by directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the respondent within two weeks to claim his ex-gratia allowance, after which the respondent must pass orders.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation to the respondent claiming ex-gratia in accordance with Rules within two weeks. The respondent was to consider the same and pass appropr

T.Venkateswarlu Vs the Vice Chairman and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 20310 OF 2002

¶6

Between:

¶7

T.Venkateswarlu, S/o Gopaiah, Fyo^{10-6-95/3/5, Burhanpuram, Khammam,} Khammam District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director,^{Girijana Cooperative CorporationLtd,} Visakhapatnam.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article²²⁶ ol^{lhe constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to} issue a writ order or direction^{more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the} action of the respondent:

¶13

a) in wrongly calculating^{the exgratia amount for which the petitioner is entitled} to resulting in^payment of^{Rs. 3,38,434.00 insteadof Rs. 3,50'96880;}

¶14

b) in withholding/deducting^{an amount of Rs.1 ,9711- andRs. 28,000/-from the} retirement benefits of the^petitioners;

¶15

c) in delayed^{paymentof retirement benfits as illegal, arbitrary, withoutpower} or authotiry and vioiative^{of Art. 14 21 and 30OA of the Constitutionof lndia and} .onruqreniirlly to^{direct the respondnetto pay the said amount of Rs.42,505.60} (12,534.60+1,671t-+2B,OOOt-) forthwith^{and to apy interest} @^{24o/op a on the} delayed^payment of retirement^benefits,

¶16

WPMP. NO:25477 OF²⁰⁰²

¶17

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 directthe} respondent herein to^{pay an amount of Rs.29,9711-(Rs. 28,000^+1 ,9711-) forthwith} pending the above writ Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI M.SUDHEER KUMAR}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent:^{SRI P.V.V SATYANARAYANA}

¶20

(sc FoR GIRIJAN G O)

¶21

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI} f20 \.RIT PETITION^No.2310

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

When the^{matter is taken up for hearing' leamed counsel for} the^{petitioner contended that the petitioner was employeduith the} respondent-Corporation^{and the grievanceof the petitioner is that} though he is^{entitled to a sum of Rs'3,50,968-80ps towards} ex-gratia, the^{respondenthas paidhim only Rs'3,38'434/-'}

¶25

Leamed counsel^{for the petitioner contended that the} respondent^{must calculate the ex-gratiapayableto the petitioner by} duly taking^{intoaccount the numberof yearsof serviceput in by the} petitioner, but the^{respondenthas erroneously calculated the ex-} gratia in favour^{of the petitioner.Therefore, leamed counselfor the} petitioner contended^{that appropriate ordersbe passed in the Writ} Petition directing^{the respondent to pay ex-gratia to the petitioner in} accordance^{with the Rules.}

¶26

This Court,^{having regardto the above submissions madeby} leamedcounsel,isoftheconsideredyiewthatthisWritPetitioncan be disposed of^{by directingthe petitioner to submit a detailed} representation^{to the respondentwithin two weeks from the date of} receipt of a^{copy of this order stating his claim for ex-gratiain} accordance with^{the Rules and upon such a representation being}

¶27

¶28

AKS W.P,No.203l0 0t2002

¶29

received, the lespondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate

¶30

orders in accordance within eight weeks thereafter.

¶31

With the above obser.ration and directions,^{the writ petition is}

¶32

disposed of. No costs.

¶33

As a sequel, the^{miscellaneouspetitions pending,if any,sl.rall}

¶34

stand closed.

¶35

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI ASSTSTAN'+EGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY' (1) SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

1 The Vice-Chairman^{& Managing Direjctor, Girijana Cooperative Corporation Ltd'} VisakhaPatnam.

¶38

One CC^{to SRI M.SUDHEER KUMAR, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶39

One CC^{to SRI P.V.V SATYANARAYANA'SC for Girijan Co [OPUC]}

¶40

Two C.D.^CoPies.

¶41

One SPare^CoPY.

MRC

HIGH^COURT

DATED:13/09/2021

ORDER

WP.No.20310^{ot 2002}

¶47

1 (- r€'
..
o 2I sEP202l
*
.k c ai.1

¶48

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

T.Venkateswarlu v. the Vice Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Venkateswarlu v. the Vice Chairman and Managing Director

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

Smt.Ch.Narsamma Vs Central Govt.Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court

T.V. Ramana Reddy Vs a.P.S.Coop.,Consumer Fed. Ltd., Hyd

Sirajuddin, Nizamabad Vs N.P.D.C.L., and 3 Others

P. Gnanesh and 2 Others Vs the A.P. Genco., Rep Byits Chief Endineer and 3 Others

M.a.Quadar,Nizamabad Dist Vs the Chairmanand Managing Director,Warangal and 2 Others

Ms. Sathavahanalspat Limited Vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance