Remanded

A.Chandramma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Aug 2023WP/16348/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC seeking pro-rata and family pension for her deceased husband. The court examined facts regarding service discontinuity and issued a direction to the respondents to dispose of the pending representation expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with direction to 1st respondent to dispose of petitioner's representation dated 16-04-2016 for sanction of pro-rata pension expeditiously within eight weeks.

A.Chandramma Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16348 OF 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

A.Chandramma, Wo.Late Pochaiah, Aged about 65^years, Occ^HouseHold, Rl/o. H.No.5-6-452, Kapuwada, Bhomakallu Road, Karimnagar, Karimnagar^District.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Principal Secretary Financeand Planning} Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Principal Secretary Irrigation Department,} Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Chief Engineer Nagarjunasagar Project, Hiil Cotony,^{Nalgonda District,} State of Telangana.

¶15

The Superintending Engineer, Nagarjunasagar^{Dam Circle, Hill Colony,} Nalgonda District, State of Telangana.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the aff idavit filed therewith,^{the High Court may be} pleased too issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring^{inaction of the respondentsin} disposing of the.petitioner representation^{dt.16.04.2016for sanctionof pro-rata} pension w.e.f 01.01.1967 and also get family^pension w.e.f. 23.09.2014^under Rule 36 of R.P.R. 1980 subsequent to^{deathof petitioner s husband Sri.} A.Pochaiah, HVT Driver who workedⁱⁿ the^{lrrigationDepartment,Nagarjuna} Sagar as illegal, arbitrary and in^{violationof principles of natural justiceand} consequently direct the respondents^{tcA sanctionpro-rata pensionw.e.f}

¶18

01.01.1967 and arso famiry pension from 23.09.2014, direct the respondents to pay arrears with interest and grant other consequentiar benefits. |.A.NO:1 OF 2018

¶19

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 1't respondent to dispose of the petitioners representation dt.'16.04.2016 for sanction of pro-rata pension w.e.t.23.09.2014 under Rure 36 of R.P.R. 1980 due to death of petitioner's husband sri. A.pochaiah, HVT Driver who has worked in the lrrigation Department, Nagarjuna Sagar.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI BANDA PRASADA RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents : Gp FOR SERVICES_II

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JT]ST^{ICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO} WRIT P^{ETITIONNO .16348 0F 2018}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition^{isfiled under Article 226 of the}

¶28

Constitution^{ol India seeking the followingrelief:}

¶29

"fo issue a^{utit of mondamusdeclaing lhe inactiort} of the respondents^{indisposing of the petitioner} representation^{dt.16-04.2O16} for^{sanction of pro-rata} pension tr,t.e.f^{O1.O1.1967 and also get family} pension w.e.f.^{23.Og.2014under Rule 36of} R.P.R.1g8O^{subsequent todeath ofpetitioner's} husband Si^{A.PochaialyHVT Diuer wlto workerl br} the lrngation^{department,Nagarjuna Sagaras} illegal, orbitrary^{andconsequentlgdirectthe} respondents to^{sanctionpro rata pensionu e.f} O 1.O1- 1967 and^also familg^{pertsion front} 23.09.2014,^{direct the respondentsto pay artears} u,tith interest and^{grant other consequential} beneftts".

¶30

2 The brief facts^{of the case are that the petitioner's} husband, late Sri^{A'Pochaiah,workedas a HTV Driver at} the time of construction^{of Nagarjunasagardam from} O1.08.1956 to^{31.12.1966 arrd he has completed10 years} and 5 months^{of service. After the completionof the} construction of^{the dam, he was retrenchedfrorn service'} Thereafter, he^{joined in RTC on O9'09'1967 as a Grade-l} Driver and retired^{from serviceon 31'08'1996 As per the}

¶31

--:=:I7:---

¶32

)

¶33

Corporalrort polic-v, there is no pension, and he was sanctioned onl1, 5Bp5 amounting to Rs.51O/ As per G.O.Ms.No. 1OO2 GAD (Service-A) Department, dated 29.1 1.1967 issued by the then Government of Andhra

¶34

Pradesh, para-iii, rvherein it is mentioned as follou,s:

¶35

"Tlrc period of fonner qualifuirtg seruice at time of tlteir retrenchment utiLl be linked with the period of sttbsctluent qualifying seraice on re-absorpti<>n for tlre purpost: of pensiort. The break irt seruice bettueen the date ort uthich theg utere retrerrched frotrt^{seruice; and the date of their re-ernploqntent} tuiLl be condotted but uLtll not count for dnA purpose like rcremertts, pensiott, etc. Howeuer, seruice tuill be regarded as continuous for the purpose of pensiott. Any pensiort or gratuitg paid to the ernltloyees otl retrenchtnent from his fonner post tuill hctue to be refunded to Gouentment as stated ir-L itctn (i) aboue".

¶36

The retrenched employee is entitled to get a prorata pension froni the date of his retrenchment i.e., from O 1.01. 1967 for tl.re past service rendered by him and absorption in or under a corporation compan-y or body under Rule 36 of Revised Pension Rules, 1980.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made a representation on 16.04.2016 to the lsr

respondent for sanction of pro-rate pension, but tili nou', the representation of the petitioner was not considcred.

¶42

In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner ald as per the G.O.Ms.No.1O02, dated 29.11.1967 (u,hich the then Government of Andhra Praciesh passed) the 1"1 respondent is directeci to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner dated 16.04.2016, strictly in accordance r.vith 1aw as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (0Bl u,eeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order

¶43