Disposed

Kadem Ramachandraiah, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Nov 2023WP/28502/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired government employee, sought a writ mandamus directing respondents to sanction provisional pension at 75% under Rule 52 of Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1990, citing inaction despite prior recommendations.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider petitioner's representations and release provisional pension as per entitlements within four weeks.

Kadem Ramachandraiah, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e 1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTTCE P.MADHAVI DEV]

¶6

w IT PE TITION NO:28502 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

AND

¶9

Kadem Ramachandraiah S/o Venkaiah, aged 63 years, Occ. Retd. Govt.. Emptovee, Assistant Direcror rrlines in? b#r&v, il.'Nii.g-g-549, Srirama Hirs Colony, Masoorabad, L.B.Nagar, HvoeraoJ iZiiil;;;:^- " .;;ffi;

¶10

The State of Telanoana Rep by its principal Secretary, lndustries and commerce Deparrme;t secreGiar: Hy;#;;d:'' "*

¶11

The Director, Mines and ceorogy Dep'a-rt-m;;]b.n.X.n Complex, Secretariat Road. Hyderabad

¶12

1. Ii!",.!;*9rfl,,.fffSrYjifi.ali lhe Accounts Officer. P18 0/o principal"Accountants *:""#sv^Department' General Office (A^{Prot No} &^1el, E) Bank of rno,a, sa iiaoli. ffi;;;;il:iyderabad, retansanal

¶13

Sfd,B6o*".u.e

¶14

5 The District rreasury officer, 2nd_froor, R.R. District, corectorate office, Kongara Katan, tbrahimpatnam, R. R. Disirici_b'o1Eid""

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 0t rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of ,mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the representations of the petitioner dated 0g-0g-20 22, o3-10-2022, 17-11-2022 and 12-06-2023, 05-08-2023 86 09-09-2023, made for rerease of provisional pension ot @ 7s percentage as per Rure 52 of rerangana state revised pension rures 1990, as iregar and arbitrary, and consequentiary direct the respondent No.2 to 5 to rerease provisionar pension oI @ 75 percentage as per Rure 52 0f rerangana state revised pension rures 1gg0 to the petitioner

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circLrmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents Nos.2 to 5 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 09-09-2023 made for release of provisional pension of @ 7 soh as per Rule 52 0f relangana state revised pension rures 1gg0, pending disposal of the writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T. B. B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES lV

¶21

The Court at the admission stage made the following: OROER

¶22

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No. 24502 of 2o23

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 09.O9 .2022, 03.1O.2022, 17 .r t .2022, 12.06.2023, 05.08.2023 and O9.09.2023 for release of provisional pension at the rate of 75%o under Rule 52 of Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and to pass such other order or orders.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 has already recommended the case of the petitioner for payment of provisional pension uide letter dated 3L.O7 .2OlA to respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has retired from service on 30.06.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is submitted that initially, the petitioner was sanctioned fu1l pension and was also paid full pension for the month of July 2O18 and thereafter, on the ground that the petitioner was involved in two vigilance casesr respondent No.2 requested respondent No.4 to revise and sanction the provisional pension at the rate of 75o/o. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the said letter, the respondents have not sanctioned the provisional pension and no pension is being paid to the petitioner.

¶29

¶30

¶31

Though^{the learned Government Pleader for St:rvices-lV} had^{sought time to get instructionson the earlieroccasion'no} instructions^{have been submittedso far'}

¶32

Having^{regardto the fact that the petitioner is r:ligible for} provisional^{pensionunder Rule 52 of tbeTelangana State Revised} Pension^{Rules' 1980 and respondentNo'2 has also recommended} the^{samein the year 2018 and more than five years have lapsed} since^{then, this Court deems it frt and proper to directthe} respondents^{particularlyrespondentsNo'2 to 5 to consider the} representations^{of the petitioner and to pass appropriateorders} and^{releasethe pension to the petitioner as per his entitlements'} The^{ordersshall be passed withina period of four (04) weeksfrom}

¶33

the^{date of receipt of a copy of this order'}

¶34

With^{the abovedirections' the Writ Petitionis;disPosedof} 5. There^{shall be no orderas to costs'} at the^{admission stage '}

¶35

Miscellaneous applications,^{ifanY Pending'shall} also

¶36

stand^closed'

¶37

SDI-V.KAVITHA 7 ASSISTANT UGISTRAR ' ,/ //TRUE^COPY// SECNOT{bFFICER

¶38

¶39

I I i i

¶40

To, 1- The Principal^{Secretary' lndustriesand Commerce Depadment Secretariat'} I +i, S[:llt,*;".^{;"; GeorogyDepartment,B'R'KR c;omprex'secretariat} Road.^HYderaoao

,,/,

The Deputy^{Director' Minesand Geology Department' Plot No'191'} - ttvderabid HMW and SB, B.N.Reddy Nagar,

¶46

a itE"ell6rid ' Offi.;;,^{E'tolo. erintipaieccountantsGeneraloffice(A and} - ii6;H;^R".e;' eina ot lndid, saifabad' Khairtabad' Hvderabad' Telanqana-500⁰⁰⁴

¶47

Telanqana-500⁰⁰⁴

¶48

1. fi;'ii[i;"i-r"rJirrrv^{officer, 2nd_ftoor,R.!} _Disrricr,^{collectorateoffice,} " Ko;o;;;'k;lan, lbrahimpatnam, R R District-so1510

¶49

i;;,ci. i;-dp-ron^{SEiinices rv ,High court for rhe state of relansana,} at Hvderabad [OUT]

¶50

?. o#'cci;tn'i.^{r-. d. B. KRISHNA MoHAN, Advocate [oPUC]}

¶51

Two CD CoPies

¶52

'>.

¶53

BM \ SB

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611112023

ORDER

-=.-.
l-<br>.)
G,'
L-
Po*
^-{-)
r,)i
<br>.q
2
iic^H
2qi

¶60

WP.No.28502 of 2023

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE ADMISSION STAGE WITHOUT COSTS

Kadem Ramachandraiah, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadem Ramachandraiah, v. The State of Telangana

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

M/s. Sana Constructive Services Vs Navjyoti Commodity Management Services Limited

N. Narasimha Chary Vs Principal Accountant General (a and E)

G Bhakshi Naik Vs Principal Secretary

K.Nikhita Vs The State of Telangana

R.Satyababu Vs The State of Telangana

K. Srinivas Reddy Vs Railway Protection Force