Dismissed

The Flat Officer Commanding-in-Chief Headquarters, v. Shri C.Veera Raju

Telangana HC20 Oct 2022WP/5535/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order dismissing two writ petitions challenging Central Administrative Tribunal orders regarding revised Dearness Allowance. The court found no interference warranted as the Tribunal's observation to examine representations was procedural.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions dismissed without costs; petitioners directed to examine representations and pass appropriate orders.

The Flat Officer Commanding-in-Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR^RAO

¶7

W.P. Nos.26089 of 2003 and 5535 OF 2005

¶8

WRIT PETtflON N0.26089 0F 2003

¶9

Between:

¶10

The Directot, Small lndustries Service^{Institute,Govt. of lndia, Ministry of SSl,} Narsapur X Road, Balanagar, Hyderabad-37.

¶11

The Development Commissioner. Smgll^{Scalelndustries, Government of} lndia, Ministry of SSl, Nirman Bhavan, 7rn Floor,^NewDelhi.

¶12

The Secretary, Government of^{lndia, Departmentof Pension and Pensioners} Welfare, New Delhi.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

J.B. Rama Murthy, S/o: Bhanu^{Murthy,12-2{.2318.12,Rama MurthyColony,} Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of^{the Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue an order or direction more^particularly in the^{nature of Writ of} Certiorari to call for the records in O.A.No.450^{of 2003 on the file of the Central} Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench,^{Hyderabadand set aside the orders} in O.A.No.450 of 2003 on the file^{of the CentralAdministrativeTribunal,} Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad dt.03-09-2003.

¶18

l.A. NO: 2OF 2003(WPMP. NO: 32970^{OF 2003)}

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourtmaybe pleased to}

¶20

¶21

o suspend the operation of orders in O.A.No. 4SO]2OO3 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad dt: 3_9_2003 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioners: SRI B NARASIMHA SARMA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent: M/S p. V. p. MRUTUNJAYA RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO: 5535 oF 200s

¶25

Between:

¶26

¶27

Comm:r'ii, *tgif;:rf;mmanoino-in-chier^{Headsuarters,} Eastern Navar

¶28

2 38"^ ?Elfr:ntroler^{of DefenceAccounts (pensions),} Office of the Chief

¶29

AND

¶30

PETITIONERS

¶31

F^t[3J}{tf#-x#3#n:[:E:?1Bb'):'J:xi:t1f^{il:,]J:i:,,-R[:&p"?fl,}

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue preferabry a writ in the nature of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records pertaining to oA No.1 14ol2oo3 dated 22 oct 2003 0n the fire of Hon'bre centrar Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same.

¶34

Counsel for the petitioners: SRL GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,

¶35

DEPUry SOLICTTOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶36

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI p. DEVENDER

¶37

The Court made the foltowing: COMMON ORDER

¶38

¶39

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶40

P f d f

¶41

' COMMON ORDER: (per llon,ble StiJusricc Abhinand Krtmar Shauili)

¶42

Since the issue involved in both the writ petfuions is one and rhe same, they are being heard rogerher and disposed of bywayof this common order.

¶43

Fleard leamed Standing Crunsel appearing for the petitionen and leamed counsel appearing for rhe respondents.

¶44

For the sake of convenience, the facts in V.p.No.5535 of 2005 are hereunder discussed.

¶45

\X/.P.No.5535 of 2OO5 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2003 passed in O.ANo.1t4O of 2003 by the Gntral Administrarive Tribunal, Hlderabad.

¶46

Ieamed Standing Counsel appearing for the petitionen had contended that the respondenrs are retired employees

and challenging the^{action of the petitionen in not grantmg}

¶51

revised D.A on^{the ground that the respondents have retired} from service before^{Ol.O4-1995 and the Tribunal has} disposed of^{the said OAs at the admissionstage directing the} respondents to submit^{representationsand the petitionen} were directed to examine^{the same and pass appropriate} orden by duly^{taking into considerationthe Full Bench} judgment of the Gntral Administrative^{Tribunai, Mumbai} Bench tn Shi^{BaburaoShahkarDhaiand ors us' Unionof India'}

¶52

Flaving considered the^{said submissions,this Coun is} of the^{view that the petitionen ought not tohave}

¶53

aggrieved by the^{or'ders passedby the Tribunal as the} Tribunal has merely^{dtected the petitionersto examine the} cases of the^{respondents and consider the representationsof} the respondents^{and pass appropriate orders'Therefore, this} C-ourt is not inclined^{to interfere with the orderspassed by}

the Tribunal.

t
t

Accordingly, both the !(/rit^petitions are dismissed.

¶60

However, the petitionen shall examine the representations

¶61

submitted bythe respondents and pass appropriate orders in

¶62

accordance with law. No costs.

¶63

Miscellaneous petitions,^'tf *y pending shall stand

¶64

closed.

¶65

SD/. K..AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII

¶66

SECTION OFFICER
To,
1
9nu QQ to Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, Advocate tOpUCl
2
One CC to Sri P. Devender. Advocat,etOFUci - '- -
4? one Qne cc CC to Sri to M/s. Gadi P. V. praveen P. Mruty-unjaya kurirdr, oeputy Rao, Advocate tOpUClsoiicitoi 6.ineri1 of rndia[opUC]
5 Two CD Copies
\ TJ
GJP
I

t. t

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011012022

COMMON ORDER

I s 1 tl c S Ir{
\ o
(
y
6t 2 4 iAti 2025 AC.
l}
t oEs PATC HEC

¶75

W.P. Nos.26089 of 2003 dnd 5535 OF 2005

¶76

DISMISSING THE BOTH WRIT PETITIONS

¶77

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶78

4-vqa
PA'\z(

¶79

The Flat Officer Commanding-in-Chief Headquarters, v. Shri C.Veera Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Flat Officer Commanding-in-Chief Headquarters, v. Shri C.Veera Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. G.Amarnath Vs Union of India

The Dist.Educational Officer,Adilabad District and 3 Others Vs P.Sampath Kumar, Adilabad District and Another

A. Laxmaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Sreenivasa Rddy and 2 Ors. Vs Chief Secy. Govt of Ap. Hyd and 8 Ors.

B. Nageswara Rao, Vs Union of India, rep by its Secretary

A.P.S.R.T.C., Vs D.Srinivas