Disposed

Manne Suvarna, Medak Dist v. Cgm, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad

Telangana HC9 Sept 2024WP/12656/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing APCPDCL to pay ex gratia under C.O.O. CGM (HRD) Ms.No.465 dated 29.09.2007 for a death by electrocution. The court disposed of the petition directing the respondent to consider and decide the ex gratia claim within three weeks after a personal hearing, if not already released.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider petitioner's ex gratia claim per Ms.No.465 dated 29.09.2007 within three weeks with personal hearing and communicate decision; no costs.

Manne Suvarna, Medak Dist Vs Cgm, Apcpdcl… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

132521

¶3

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

¶4

IVONDAY. THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 12656 OF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

Manne Suvarna, S/o. Late Padmaiah, Aged about 34 Years, Occ: Daily Wage Labour, Rio Neredrgunta Village - 502270, Andhote Mandal, Medal( Didtirct^-

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Central Power Distribution Company(APCPDCL) represented by the Chief General Manager Operation/Rangareddy Zone, APCPDCL, H.No.6-1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad - 500063

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Anide 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances staied in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate Writ or order or direction to the Respondent herein holding that the inaction on the part of the Respondent for not paying exgratia as per C.O.O CGM (HRD) I/s.No.465 dated 29-09-2007 even after nearing three years'is illegal, arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and direct the Respondent to pay exgratia to the Petitioner heretn as per C.O.O.CGM (HRD) Ms.No.465 dated 29-09-2007 within a time bound period.

¶15

LA. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 15866 OF 20f 4)

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to pay exgratia to the Petitioner herein as per C.O.O. CGM (HRD) Ms.No.465 dated 29-09-2007 within a time bound period pending disposal of the Writ Petition. {'

¶17

¶18

Counsel forthe Petitioner: SRI UPPALAPATI SURESH^BABU Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI R. VINOD REDDY,^SC

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

{

¶21

!€-:--.:::7

¶22

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.1 2656 of 2014

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri Uppalapati Suresh Babu,^learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^{petitioner and} Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing^Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶26

The petitioner approached the Court^seeking prayer as under:

¶27

"...to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of [t4andamus or^an appropriate Writ or order or direction to^{the Respondent} herein holding that the inaction on the^{part of the} Respondent For not^paying ex^{gratia as perC.O.O.CGM} (HRD) Ms.No.465 dated 29.O9.2007 even after^nearing three years is illegal, arbitrary and^violationof fundamental rights^guaranteed under the^Constitution and direct the Respondent to^pay ex^{gratia to the} Petitioner herein as per C.O.O.CGM^{(HRD)Ms.No.465} dated 29.09.2007 within a time^{bound period and pass} such other order or orders which are^{deemed fit and} proper in the interest of justice."

¶28

The case of the^petitioner in^{brief, isthat the} respondent is not^paying ex^{gratia as per C.O.O.CGM (HRD)} Ms.No.465 dated 29.09.2007^{adopted by the Government to}

¶29

¶30

¶31

the legal representatives of deceased persons who died due to electrocution. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶32

Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondent to verify the claim of the petitioner pertaining to payment of ex gratia to the petitioner herein as per C.O.O.CGM (HRD) Ms.No.465 dated 29.09.2007, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner if the payment of ex gratia had not arready been rereased to the petitioner as on date.

¶33

Taking into consideration the submissions put-forth by Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent and bringing the said submissions on record, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for payment of ex gratia to the petitioner as r per C.O.O.CGM (HRD)

¶34

Ms.No.465 dated 29.O9.2OO7, in accordance to^{law and} take a decision in the matter, within a^{period of three} (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by providing an opportunity of^{personalhearing} to the petitioner as^per the^{petitioner's entitlement,} if the payment of exgratia had not^alreadybeen released to the^petitioner as on date^{and duly} communicate the decision to the^{petitioner. However,}

¶35

there shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel, the miscellaneous^{petitions, if any,pending} in the Writ Petition shall also^{stand closed.}

¶37

SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAB RAO ASSTSTANT REG/6rRAR / //TRUE COPY// U SECTIOI(OFFICER

¶38

¶39

To, 1 The Chief General Manager, Central Power Distribution Company(APCPDCL) Operation/Rangareddy Zone, APCPDCL, H.No 6-1 -50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad - 500063 One CC to Sri Uppalapati Suresh Babu, Advocate [OPUC] J One CC to Sri R. Vinod Reddy(SC for TSTRANSCO) TOPUCI Two CD Copies TJ LStt-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910912024

-<br>c-
2 r[I 2[?$ :

ORDER

WP.No.12656 of²⁰¹⁴

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION}

¶48

WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

C.064
fr*w {..

¶50

Manne Suvarna, Medak Dist v. Cgm, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manne Suvarna, Medak Dist v. Cgm, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad

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

K. Ramchandar Vs Shri M. Danakishore

Bommadeni Ram Mohan Vs Sri Boora Venkatesham Goud

K. Laxminarayana Vs K. Anjaneyulu

M/s Shivani Engineering Industries Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

Nawaz Enterprises, Vs The A.P.C.P.D.C.L.

K. Manga Vs Smt. Shruti Ojha