Disposed

M.A. Sattar, v. the Addl. Director General of Police, Railways

Telangana HC17 Oct 2022WP/6423/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special original jurisdiction petition, the High Court of Telangana directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's pending application for compassionate pension under Rules, 1980 and pass appropriate orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider the application for compassionate pension and pass orders within three months.

M.A. Sattar, Vs the Addl. Director General… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

I I ,l

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA At Hvcterabad (Speciat Original Jurisdiction )

¶4

[/ONDAY THE SEVENTEENTH 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

WRIT PETITION NO: 6423 0F 200s

¶8

Between:

¶9

tvl.A. Sattar,. S/o. tr/ohd. yousu{ Aged 46 years, Former RpC 139 Working at R PS/Secundera bad. R/o H.No.1805, Shikar Khana, Narsampet (iej, Warangal District 506 132

¶10

AND

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

The Addl. Director General of police, Railways, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad 2. lnspector General of poLce (Admn), Railway potice at SecinOeraOaO 3 bupenntendent of police, Govt. Railway police at Secunderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High^'court may be pleased to rssue writ or direction preferabry writ of mandamus decraring the order of removar issued by the 3rd respondent jn the proceedings Rc. No.9/pR/A6/1997, dt. 03. 1 0. 1997 as confirmed by the respondents .l and 2 on 31 .OT.2OO0 and 20.4.2OO1 are illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and consequenfly direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with arr back wages arong with a, other benefits and by setting aside the order of the Hon'ble A.P A T. Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.2799/02, dt 13.09.2004.

¶15

l.A. NO: I OF 2005(w PMP . NO: 848I OF 2005)

¶16

Petition under section 151 cpc pr,aying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased fix an early date of hearing, pending the disposar of writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. KOWTURU PAVAN KU[V|AR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRl. G S SANGHI

¶19

The Court made the fofiowing: ORDER

¶20

\ t

¶21

TION'B[,F- SIII JUSTICE ABHINAND^KLMAR SIIA/ILI AND HON'BLE SRI .JTISI'ICE NAMAVARAPT]^{RAJESIIWARRAO} W.P.No.6,123 of 2005

¶22

ORD ER: rl',r'^ll on^{il r .\r i .l ust t. c .l li untt ntt Kunar-\hati t il}

¶23

When the metter is iaken up lor^{hearing, leamedcotlnsei}

¶24

lor the petitioner had contended that^{the petitionerwas working as} Police Constable and he has absented^{himself tiom duty from} 1l-0,1-1994 till the date olservice olorder as'not^{duty' owing to} ill-health and other domestic problerns and the^{respondentshave} rernoved the petitioner lrom service^{as a measure of disciplinary} action vide proceedings dt.03-10-1997.^{Aggrieved by the same,} the petitioner has unsuccessfully^{plelerred alrpealand revision} and later challer-rged the orders of^{removal beforethe A.P.} Administrative^'fribunal, lJyderabad by filing^{O.A.No.2799of} 2002 and the-tribunal vide orders dt.l3-09-2004^{was pleased to} dismiss the O..,\

¶25

Learned counsel fbr the^petitioner had^{further contended} that since the petitioner h;rs^{submitted an application seeking} compassionate pension under^{Rules 40 and 41 of RevisedPension}

¶26

¶27

¶28

Ilulcs, 1980 ar-rd the^{sarne is pending belore the Statc} Government, at least,^{the State Governmentt-tlay be dilectedto} consider thc application ol^{the petitioncr lorgrant of} compassionatc pcnsion and^{pass appropriate orders.}

¶29

This Court having considered^{the rival submissions made} by the learned counsel^{for the parties is ol the consideredview} that the Writ Petition^{can be disposedof directing the respondents} to consider the representation^{submitted by the petitioneron} 27 -09-2022 lor^grant of compassionate^{pension in termsof Rules,} 1980 and considcr the^{sameand pass appropriate ordersin} accordance with law,^{within a period of threemonths from today'}

¶30

With these obserwations, the Writ^{Petition is disposedoL}

¶31

No costs.

¶32

As a sequel, the miscellaneous^{petitions pending,if any,}

¶33

shall stand closed.

¶34

.t ^"'.?5r'-^',lYtEtL'+'il t //TRUE^COPYI/ sECTloN^orrrcrn

¶35

¶36

¶37

1 2. 3 4 6 l*"lHfl+:'1"$il:;:#f;Ht?Ji[?:..".:''{ir*;ieara. 6 Two^CDCoPtes 7 One^SpareCoPY

Pv lls SK-

i tl

1 ! ,!

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711012022

ORDER

WP.No.6423 of 2005

<br>d;;-<br>/i
I
a r iriil ?$&
li.j o;, II
1\ r,:
ri.r

¶46

WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED OF NO COSTS.

¶47

@
vltY I ze'
EJr-

M.A. Sattar, v. the Addl. Director General of Police, Railways

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.A. Sattar, v. the Addl. Director General of Police, Railways

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Madanmohan Rao, Khammam. Vs the Executive Engineer, Khammam District

G. Komuraiah and 19 Others Vs the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry and 6 Others

G. Aruna Vs Kakatiya University

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs G. Anjilaiah

Wg.Cdr(Retd) M.G.Chhabria,R.K.Puram, Secunderabad Vs Union of India., Min.of.Defence, and 6 Others

Dr M Kiran Kumar, Hyderabad Vs Dr T Srinivasa Reddy, Hyd and 3 Others