Disposed

R.Sanjeeva Rao v. TheChairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC19 Apr 2023WP/32366/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice A. Abhishek Reddy disposed of a writ petition filed by an employee seeking retirement and terminal benefits against Bharat Dynamics Ltd. Without examining merits, the Court directed the respondent to consider a pending representation from 2010 and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.11.2010 and pass appropriate orders on merits within eight weeks.

R.Sanjeeva Rao Vs TheChairman and Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[3167 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 32366 OF 2010

¶8

Between:

¶9

R. Sanjeeva Rao, S/o R. Narasing Rao Under Dismissal H.NO.17-2-520, Kurmaguda PO., Saidabad, Hyderabad-500 059

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Chairman and fVlanaging Director, Bharat Dynamics Ltd., Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declaring the action of the respondent in not paying the retirement and terminal benefits for which the petitioner is entitled is illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural^justice and further declare the action of the respondent in not considering the representation dt. 09-1 1-201 0 seeking to settle the terminal and retirement benefits.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP. NO:41141 oF 2010)

¶16

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 consider the representation dt. 09-11-2010 made by the petitioner to the respondent seeking to settle the terminal and retirement benefits and pending disposal of the WP.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Between:

¶19

R. Sanjeeva Rao, S/o R. Narasing Rao Since died As per the docket order passed in CC No.912/13 , dt. 19-08-2019. on the file of the Court of the ll AMM -^Cum -^{ll JCJ,Cvberabad LB Naqar}

¶20

R. Vanisri, W/o. Subash, aged about 40 years, Occ: House Wife R/o. H.No.1 7-2-385lA, Kurmaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad

¶21

R. Kiran Kumar, S/o. Late R. Sanjeeva Rao Aged about 38 years, Occ: Pvt_, Employee Rl/o. H.No.17-2-385/4, Kurmaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶22

R.^priyanka. Wo R Ho u s e w i re

¶23

ny, ri li, s r r"_I ;" Ed,-EI;g" [,#;]1%X., : :r%T.i: ffi ?:,;B:: ,

¶24

AND

¶25

...PETITIONERS

¶26

The Chairman anrl t\y'662g;ng Director. Bharat D Hyderabad. ynamics Ltd., Kanchanbagh,

¶27

...RESPONDENT

¶28

Petition under Sect. in rne affioavii ;ffi;"";#:-'!:.,cPC praying that in the crrcumstances slaled p".-it tnu puil,i"""|.. r1!1""["J#: :enl ):",y:#h.courr ,,v o"'r["#'.t. of writ^peritioner r,ro.r,1 rn^{"w.c.No.323;;} ;;;;;r1"";"",;,1";""1:,Ji^r=ii".rJil,^,o.

¶29

Counset for the petitioner: SRt R. SANJEEVA RAO, PARTY-IN_PERSON

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. V. UMA DEVI

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

'iltE IION'tlt.u sRI,,I/s1.t(]ta A. A'ltIIStIr.K lU._Dt)y

¶33

w,il'I' PU't'tTI() NNo .32366 of 20t()

¶34

ORDT]R:

¶35

Aggrievcd by rhc action ol-rhc rcspondcnt in not paying the retiremcnt and lcrminal bcncllts lor which thc petitioncr is entitled to and in not cons idcring thc reprcsclt tat ion datcd 09.11.2010 secking to scttlc thc tcnninal and rctircnrent benefits, thc petitioncr has fircd thc prese nt writ I,ctition.

¶36

Without going into the mcrils or dcmcrits of thc case, having regard to the lact that thc pelitioncr has already submitted a reprcsentation datcd 09. I I .20 I0 to thc respondent seeking to sel.tle the terminal and rctircmcnt bcncf.its, this Wrif Petition is disposcd of dirccting thc rcspondcnt to consider thc pel.itioner's representation datcd 09. I I .2010 and pass appropriatc ordcrs thercon, strictly in accordance with law, on merits, as cxpediliously as possiblc, prcl,erably, within a pcriod

¶37

{ {

¶38

ol- ciglrt^{(81 u,ccks lionl thc dltc ol' rccciptol- a coplo1- this}

¶39

tu rdcr

¶40

N4 iscc llr ncoLrs applicatiorls,^{il- atrv} pc ndinc,. shall starrd

¶41

closecl.^'l hcrc strall^{llc tlo ortlcr as to costs}

¶42

SD/-T.JAYASREE ASSISTAN^{T REGIST} //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^{OFFI CER}

¶43

To, 1 The Chairman:nd^{Managing Drrector' Bharat Dynamrcs Ltd ' Kanchanbagh} 2 Xlo""#?,l.*' R .ANJEEVA^{RAo PARrY--IN-PERS.N[.PUC]} 3 E[;E ii iri.^{v lrvrA-oEvrAdvocate[oPUC]} 4 Trvo CD^CoPtes BN lls

{

i {

HIGH COURT

DATED:1^910412023

ORDER

WP.No.32366^{of 2010}

¶54

1 r-\ f1 S TA fC: oA
I
O [B luN?s8 i

¶55

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶56

6
q.lr/,
s,
<::>

R.Sanjeeva Rao v. TheChairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sanjeeva Rao v. TheChairman and Managing Director

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

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hanamkonda, Warangal District Vs the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Warangal and Another

Smt.M.Sujata and Another Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another

Amara Srinivasa Rao Vs Kodela Chinna Rajaiah

Smt.Ch.Shobha Rani Vs Mettu Sarala

K. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, Vs Chindam Rajamallu

T.Malla Reddy Vs The Government of Ap.