Writ appeal against a single judge's order dismissing a petition regarding pension entitlement following compulsory retirement. The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for re-examination of the record.
Impugned order set aside; appellant directed to submit fresh representation with relevant material for re-examination by the Bank.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
t3318 I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAYOF SEPTEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO: 899 OF 2023
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patentpreferred against the order daled 021O812023 in the W P No 24799 of 2004. on thefile of theHigh Court.
Between:
T.Ebenezer, S/o. T. Boaz, Aged about 73 years, Occ. Retd employee, R/o. Hyderabad
APPELLANT/PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONOENTS
Counsel forthe Appellant: SRI P. S. RAJASEKHAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: RAVINUTALA VENKATA SUBBA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: NONE APPEARED
The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHTNAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.899 OF 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per AKS,I)
This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 02.04.2023, passed in W.P.No.24799 of 2004 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
\
(
2 Al\SI 3, RRN.J W.A No Ll(19 of 2023
submitted representations requesting the respondent_Bank to extend him the pension Scheme, by duly taking into account his option, dated 18.12.1995. However, the case ot.the appeltant was considered and rejected by the respondent_Bank vide proceedjngs, dated 05.01.2004, on the ground that the appeilant has not exercised his option pursuant to the Circular, dated 23.11.1995. Aggrieved by the same, the appeilant has approached this court by filing the subject W.p.No.24799 of 2004 and a tearned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned order, dated 02.08.2023, was pleased to dismiss the subject Writ petition on the ground that the appellant has not exercised his option pursuant to the Circular, dated 23.11.1995.
4 Learned c6unsel for the appellant further contended that the rssue as to whether the persons, who retired on penalty of compulsory retirement, are entifled for pension or not, was considered by this Court in W.A.No.902 of 2072, dated 08.08.2013, wherein, this Court has held that there cannot be any discrimination between One such set of retirees on penalty of compulsory retirement from the other set of retirees, and the same was also confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court. Learned counsel further contended that subsequenfly, the respondent-Bank has come up with another Circular on
l|I\S..1 &, RllN,.J \l'A.No.899 ol1023
21.08.2010, onceaqain invitingapplicationsfrom the retired employees forgiving options to jointhe PensionScheme' Accordingly, theappellant has once againexercised his option pursuant to the Circular, dated21.08.2010, and accordingly, the respondent-Bank ispayingpension to the appellantwitheFFect from 27.11.2009.The grrevance of the appellant is that the respondent-Bankis not extending the Pension Schemeto the appellant from the dateof his compulsoryretirementi'e' with effect from 17. 12.2002.
I t.,
i,
1I
AKS..Iii, IiI( N.., 4 W./.No.899ol2023
DispatchRegisterand also other materialavailablewith the appellant.
6'ontheotherhand,thelearnedStandingCounselappearing for therespondent-Bank had contendedthat let the appellant Submit aFresh representationto the respondent-Bank,by duly enclosingall the relevant documents,and the respondent-Bank wouldexaminethesameandpassappropriateorders,in accordance with law.
t
)
AI(S,J & RRN,.' W A No.899 oi 2023
I
respondent-Bank shall veriFy the same and pass appropriate orders. in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
.MiscellaneousApplications,if any,pending in this Writ
Appeal, sha ll stand closed.
SD/-8.S. CHIRANJEEVI JorNr REGI7RAR ./
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
t i I
I I i I i I I
! 'l
HIGH COURT
DATED:1310912023
JUDGMENT
WA.No.899 of 2023
i ':1, 1,1,1 ;. \
:-:i' ' -'o.'.-,
{t. <br>iiil
1[ BtI2[8
"ti
. .,'l
ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL
WITHOUT COSTS.
S
{e
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant, compulsorily retired, is entitled to pension from the date of retirement or only upon application for revision.
T. Ebenezer
The Indian Bank
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Namavarapu Rajeswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
