Disposed

N. Prashanth Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Sept 2023WP/31010/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Superintendent, filed a writ petition for non-payment of salary from January 2017. Without deciding merits, the High Court permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and directed respondents to dispose of it within two months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to submit a fresh representation; respondents directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders within two months.

N. Prashanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 31010 OF 2017

¶9

Between:

¶10

N.Prashanth Reddy, S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy,^Aged Superintendent Govt. Diet, R/o. Warangal,

50 years, Occ

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, School^Education

¶15

Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

fhe Director of School Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad. il 3. The Regional Director of School Education,^Warangal. €

¶17

The Principal Govt. DIET, Warangal.

¶18

The District Treasury Officer, Warangal Urban^District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 writ, order or direction one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus by declaring the action of respondent in not releasing the^{salaries of the petitioner} from January 2017 as wholly, illegal, atbitrary and violation of^{Article 14, 16 and 21} of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct^{the respondentsto release the} salary of the^petitioner along with the interest at the rate^{o'f 18ok}

¶21

I.A. NO: 1OF 2O17(WPMP. NO: 38636 0F 2017)

¶22

Petition under Section^'151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleasedto direct} the 5th respondent to release the salary of the^{petitioner along with arrears} forthwith or in the alternate let the salary of the 5th^{respondent be withheld} pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. J.SWATHI, REP. SRI^{PRATAP NARAYAN} SANGHI

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondents: AGP FOR SERVICES^I

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

;

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS ]IAO WRIT PETITION No.31OLO of 2O\7

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This V/rit Petition is filed seeking the following r,:lief.

¶31

"......to issue utnt order or direction one in the nottire cf Wnt Of Mondamus by declaing the acttorL of respondent in not releasing the salaies of the: petitioner from Januory 2017, as uholly iliegal arbitrctry :n'td uiolation of Articles 14 1 6 an-d 2 7 orF the CanstitiLtion of htdia and consequently direct the, respondents to release the salary of the petitioner along tultlt the interest at the rate of 18 % anal. pass....."

¶32

dd'

¶33

Heard Ms. J.Swathi, learned cc,unsel

¶34

representing Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned cc,unsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents and perused the record.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitrs that tvas the petitioner appointed as Junior Assistant on 28.05.1985 and^promoted as Senior Assistant in thr: year 2006 and that while the duties as Office Superinterrdent, the petitioner applied for leave for a period of six mcnths

(^f

from 01.Ll.2016 to 30.04.2017 and thereafter reportei ro duty by cancelling the leave on 24.12.2016.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that during leave period, Sri Nagabhushanam was promoted as Office Superintendent and posted in the Ieave vacalcy and that the respondent No.3 posted the peritioner to Warangal , alter rejoining. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel lor the petitioner that the respondent No.5 returned the salary bills of the petiticwei and that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.08.2017 to the District Collector requesting to release his salary from January, 2Ol7 and inspite of repeated requests no action was taken so far

¶41

O5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for

¶42

Services-l submitted that the District Collector is no way concerned with the bills of the petitioner.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to permit the petitioner to submit afresh representation to the respondents-authorities seeking release of his safary from the month of January, 2Ol7 and

¶44

¶45

to direct the respondents to consider the same and to pass appropriate Orders

¶46

Learned Assistant Government Plead,:r for Services-l apoearing for respondents submits th lt the respondents u'ill consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate Orders, in accordan<;e u,ith law and requeste d this Court to grant reasonable time

¶47

Having ccnsidercd the submissions of t respective parties, r.r,ithout going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant libertS, to the petitione r to submrt er.fresh representation to the respondents authorities seeking release of his sala:y from the month of Jar-ruar},, 2017, withrn a period of twc weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order and the respondents are directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate Orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) .months thereafter.

¶48

Accordingly, the Writ petition is dispc,sed of There sha1l be no order as to costs.

¶49

¶50

¶51

As a sequel, the miscellareous petitions pending, if

¶52

ary', shall stand closed

¶53

SD/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶61

The Director of School Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶62

3- The Regional Director of School Education, Warangal.

¶63

The Principal Govt. DIET, Warangal.

¶64

The District Treasury Officer, Warangal Urban District.

¶65

One CC to Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

Two CCs to GP for Services l, High Court for the State of Teiangana at

¶67

Hyderabad (OUT)

¶68

1. Two CD Copies

f-!

E ot-

{

HIGH COURT

DATED:201O912023

ls
I .'- ,;f,l
l- "L'i
:l:' ,.:
t)

¶75

ORDER

¶76

WP.No.31010 ot 2017

¶77

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS.

N. Prashanth Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Prashanth Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lagisetti Sulochana Vs The Superintending Engineer

Md. Afzal Baba, Vs The Stte of Telangana

Ms. Bathula Mounika, Nalgonda Dist Vs Md, Tspdcl., Mint Compound, Hyd and 2 Others

Ch.Rambayamma, Vs The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare

N. Bhushan Vs State of Telangana

Mohd. Khaja Vs The State of Telangana