Dismissed

C. Sudershan, Nizamabad Dist. v. Dbcwo, Nizamabad and 3 Ors.

Telangana HC10 Jul 2023WP/17706/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 17706 of 2013 as withdrawn. The petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition regarding dismissal from service to file an alternative application for compensatory allowance under Revised Pension Rules. The Court granted permission for withdrawal and granted liberty to file the pension application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an application for compensatory allowance under Rule 40 of Revised Pension Rules.

C. Sudershan, Nizamabad Dist. Vs Dbcwo… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA . ATHYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE^{ABHINANDKUMARSHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 17706 OF 2013

¶8

Be(ween:

¶9

C. Sudershan, S/o: C.Rajaram, Aged 55^years, Occ: Junior Assistant, District Backward Classes Welfare Office, Hyderabad, Fl/o:H. No .2-241 1, Jankampet village, Yedpally Mandal, Nizamabad District503'l 86

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND )

¶12

1 Office of the District Backward Class Welfare Officer, Pragathi Bhavan, Collectorate, Nizamabad District.

¶13

The District Collector, Nizamabad.

¶14

The Commissioner, Backward Class Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Backward Class Welfare (Vig.Cell.A1) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Rep. By its Principal Secretary.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i) To declare the orders^passed by the fourth^{respondent in GO} Ms. No.1 Backward Classes Welfare^(Vig.Cell.Al )^{Departmentdated1 1.1.2010} duly served on the^petitioner on 17.2.2010 dismissing^{him fromservice,as has} been confirmed by the A.P. Administrative^{Tribunal, Hyderabad, in OA No. 1056 of} 2010 through orders dated 8.4.2013 as^{illegal, arbitrary, unjust apartfrombeing} violative of principles of natural^justice and^{against the mandatory provisionsof} Andhra Pradesh Civil Services^{(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the AndhraPradesh}

¶18

Civil Services (Classification and Appeal) Rules, 199'1 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court; and ii) To consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents^'1 to 4 to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into service by giving all service benefits including pay and allowances from the date of dismissal to the present day and pay the balance amount of salary for the period of suspension till the date of reinstatement i.e. from 27 .9.2005: and iii) to pass such other order or orders which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 21530 OF 2013)

¶20

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend GO IVs. No.1 Backward Classes Welfare^(Vig.Cell.A1 ) Dept. dated 11.1.2010 as has been confirmed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in OA No. 1056 of 2010 dated 8.4.2013, by directing the respondents to^forthwith reinstaie the petitioner into service.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶22

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleased to take} up the above Writ Petition for hearing, as out of turn.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. NANDIGAM KRISHNA^RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶27

AND

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶29

W.P.No.17706 of 201 3

¶30

ORDER: (Per fla r'h/e Sn lusttc Ablina Kznar Sbauili)

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition to file an application under Rule 40 of Revised Pension Rules, seeking compensatory allowance.

¶32

In view of the ""i*", *rit petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. It is needless to say that the State shall consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and also in terms of his hnancial purpose arrd his age for grant of compensatory allowance. No order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

¶34

SD/- K. AMMAJI //rRUE coPYtt^{ASSlsr}{EEGlsrRAR} SEcT.i6N oFFICER

¶35

To, 1. One CC to Sri. Nandioam Krishna Rao, Advocate tOpUCl ' IJfr?.'to GP ror sSciat werraie, iEh eilit;t'ne statL orreransana. 3. Two CD Copies TJ GJP 1 €

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010712023

ORDER

yrF- STA Pq
(<br>,o
iJ )r
IU O B AIIE 2$8 I
* D

¶40

¶41

WP.No.17706 of 2013

¶42

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS.

¶43

6
&trfcrtI
sd

C. Sudershan, Nizamabad Dist. v. Dbcwo, Nizamabad and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Sudershan, Nizamabad Dist. v. Dbcwo, Nizamabad and 3 Ors.

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

Apsrtc (Now Tsrtc) and 2 others Vs S.Bal Raj

Dr. Ganta Sathvika Reddy Vs Dr. D. Praveen Kumar

M.B.Rayudu Vs Vasu Gupta

Secretary, Education Dept, Hyd and 2 Othrs Vs Mohd Mahmood, Hyderabad and 5 Othrs

The State of Telangana Vs Iqbal Ahmed, S/o. Mohd Abdul Ali

M.v.Narasa Das, Vs The State of Telangana