Dismissed

Shika Venkata Lakshmi, Khammam Dist. v. Prl. Secy., Electricity Dept. and 4 Ors.

Telangana HC6 Sept 2023WP/2397/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the writ petition as infructuous because the petitioner's claim for salary and pension was rejected by a speaking order during the petition's pendency. The court granted liberty to challenge the rejection order separately.

What did the court decide?

Petition to be dismissed as infructuous with liberty to challenge the speaking order rejecting the claim.

Shika Venkata Lakshmi, Khammam Dist. Vs Prl. Secy… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2397 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shika Venkata Laxmi, Wo Late Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ House wife, Rl/o H.No. 5-3-16, Rastogi Nagar, Khammam, Khammam District, State of Telangana

¶10

...PET!TIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep. by Principal Secretary to Govt., Dept. of Electricity, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Chairman and Managing Director, TSNPDCL, Warangal, State of Telangana.

¶14

The Chief Genera Manager/HRD, TSNPDCL,, Warangal, State of Telangana

¶15

The Superintending Engineer, Operation, NPDiscom, Kammam, State of Telangana

¶16

The Divisional Engineer, District Stores, TSNPDCL, Kammam State of Telangana

¶17

...RESP.NDENTS

¶18

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 declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying salary for the month of January 2006 and in not sanctioning death benefits and family pension etc., in spite of several representations as illegal, arbitrary, dereliction of duty and inhuman and further direct the Respondents to sanction and^{pay pending} salary, death benefits and family pension etc., to the Petitioner

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP . NO: 3023 OF 2016)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents to pay salary for the month of January, 2006⁽²⁶ days) and^pay provisional family pension immediately to the petitioner pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.BHASKARA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SERVICES-IV

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : SRI ZAKIR ALI DANISH, STANDING COUNSEL

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HON'IItE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENfVAS, RAO

¶25

UrRIT PETITION No.2397 of 2O.16

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition is filed for the follovdng relief:

¶28

" ... to issue a Wit order or dir<zction nrcr,z ltarticularlg^{one in tLrc nature of lArnt of} I^ilandamus declaing the acti.on cf the )?espondents in not paging salary j>r the rtonth of January 2006 ard ir'. not :anctioning death benefits and Jarnilll pension etc., in spite o-f seue-ral r epresentations as illegal, arbitra4t ct.ereliction of dutg and inhumarl ancl J^{rther direct the Respondents;losanrc.liort} cnd pay pending salary, dearh benefit:; cnd family pension etc., to the Petttionczr."

¶29

Heard Sri A.Bhaskara Chari, learned cotrnsel for the petitioner, . earned Government Pleader for fierrices-IV appearing fr,r respondent No. 1 and Sri 21akir Ali Danish, learned St;rnding Counsel appearing on beltalf of respondent l,los.2 to 5.

¶30

When the matter is taken up fc,r h earing, learned courrsel for the petitioner submits that, <luring the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents rejected the claim of tht: petitioner by a speaking order lhr:refore, learned courrsel for the petitioner submits that, the writ

¶31

¶32

petition has become infructuous and request this Court to close the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to

¶33

challenge the rejection order.

¶34

Recording the said submissions, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the rejection order passed by the

¶35

respondents-Corporation. No order as to costs.

¶36

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶37

stand closed.

¶38

SD/. P. PADMANABHA REODY ASSISTAi9+REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,_D SECTION OFFICER

¶39

¶40

1 One CC to Sri A.Bhaskara Chary, Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP for Services-lV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 3 One CC to Sri Zakir Ali Danish, Standing Counsel [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies Kj. GJ P

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/09/2023

ORDER

---::
4?,u t'A f€ c);+
/,
.t1 [tI TB ,1
/
.-.. 4..

¶46

WP.No.2397 of 2016

¶47

DISMISSING THE WI' AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶48

( )
6rtr (o

Shika Venkata Lakshmi, Khammam Dist. v. Prl. Secy., Electricity Dept. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shika Venkata Lakshmi, Khammam Dist. v. Prl. Secy., Electricity Dept. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Kalamma Vs Tsrtc,Jnt.M.D,Hyd,and 2

Banoth Naveen and 3 Ors. Vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept. and 3 Ors.

K.Vittal, Adilabad Dist. Vs R. Laxman, I.R.S., Hyd and Another

T.Subash Reddy Vs The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy.

V.Ramanujam S/o.Rajaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

P. Shiva Kumar, Vs The Chairman and General Manager, Tsnpdcl