Allowed

Ch. Vedavani, Hyd v. Collector, R.R. Dt. and 2 Ot

Telangana HC2 Jan 2024WP/28987/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana issued a writ of Mandamus directing the State of Telangana and associated authorities to pay a lump sum of Rs. 16,00,000 to Ms. Girija Gummadi (represented by Ms. Vedavani) within two months as legal fees for services rendered as Special Counsel, as there was no dispute over the entitlement.

What did the court decide?

A direction to pay a lump sum of Rs. 16,00,000 within two months.

Ch. Vedavani, Hyd Vs Collector, R.R. Dt… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^33e3 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 1^{(SPecialOriginal Jurisdiction)}

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

lll PRESENT

¶5

THE H Jli]".. rHE cHrEF JUST.E AL.K ARADHE ril AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶6

ivJnr^perrrroN No: 28987 oF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ch. Vedavani, W/o Ch. Vijaya Kumar Aged^{45 years Occ AdvocateR/o Plot No.145,} Raghavanagar Colony Meerpet, Saroornagar Mandal,^Hyderabad

...PETIT1ONER

AND

The Collector, Rariga Reddy District Hyderabad.

¶13

The Tahsildar & Atthorised Officer Land Reforms, R.R.District^Hyderabad

¶14

The Goveinment tf Andhra Pradesh,^Rep. by^{its SecretaryDepartmentof} Law Legislative Affairs and Justioe Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶15

The State or i8tlng"nr, Rep. by^{its SecretaryDepartnrent of Law and} Legislative Affairs anil Justice, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶16

Respondent ruJ.hli. impleaded as^per Court^{Order dated15.03.2O22in} l.A.No.1 of 2O22.,1 i! ...RESPoNDENTS rl Petition under Article 226 d ol the Constitutbn of^{lndiaprayingthat in the} I circumstances stated ir{ the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direclion'^{one in the natureof} Mandamus, or any other writ by directing^{the respondents to releasethe payment} of remuneration "" p"r. i the proceedings of the Respondent^{No. '1 vide Procgs} I No.AO(LR)i6l2007 dated 21 .06.2OO7 Procgs No.AO(LR)1612O07^{dated1 1.09.2007} and G.O.Rt.No. 1521 #J{80 ou.or.ro08 of the Respondent^No.3

¶17

t 'l

¶18

.A. NO: 1 OF 201 MP. NO: 35992 OF 2013

¶19

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 respo;rdents to expedite the payment of remuneration as per lhe presentations dt.24-12-2011 and 31st August 2013 of the petitioner within a reasonable time as directed by this Hon'ble Court pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.P. VENUGOPAL REPRESENTING Ms. GIRIJA GUMMADI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI P. GOVIND REDDY, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR APHC

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR LAW AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶27

AI{D

¶28

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.28987 of 2OL3

¶30

ORDER.' (Per th.e Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

¶31

Mr. A.P.Venugopal, learned counsel representing Ms. Girija Gummadi, Iearned counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

Mr. P.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for respondent No.3

¶33

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliet

¶34

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying alfrdavit, it is humbly prayed tl.at the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, one in the nature of Mandamus, or any other writ by directing the respondents to release the payrrent of remuoeration as per the proceedings of the Respondent No. 1 vide Procgs No.Ao(LR)/6/2007 dated 21.06.2OO7 Procgs No.AO{LE/6/20O7 dated

¶35

¶36

ll.O9.2OO7 and G.O.Rt.No_ 1521 dated O5.O8.20O8 of the Respondent No.3 and pass such other orders as this Honourable Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶37

Facts giving rise to {iling of this writ petition briefly stated are that on 1 1.09.2007, petitioner who is a practicing Advocate was appointed as Special Counsel on behalf of Tahsildar and Authorized Officer, Land Reforms, Ralga Reddy District, Hyderabad, to appear before the Reforms Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, East Division on a monthly remuneration of Rs.3O,OOO.OO. On 05.Og.2OOg, the petitioner was appointed as Counsel to assist the Senior Counsel before the Appellate Authority in Ranga Reddy District. According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs.27,63,325.00 which was due and payable to the petitioner on account of fee was not paid to her. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation on 31.08.2008.

¶38

Thereafter, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 11,83,000.00 upto 3L.L2.2OO9. However for a period

'//

subsequent to 2OO9, the petitioner was not paid the monthly remuneration. Thereupon the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the proceeding dated 27.02.2015 signed by the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in which it has been admitted that al amount of Rs.23,93,000.00 is due and payable to the petitioner. It is further submitted that a sum of Rs. 1 1,83,OOO.OO has been paid to the petitioner and a direction be issued to the State of Telangana to pay the balance amount of Rs. 15,8O,OOO.OO along with interest.

¶44

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Govt. of T.N. v. Thillaivillahnr.

¶45

7 . On the other hand, learned Special Counsel for State of Andhra Pradesh has submitted that the State of

¶46

I AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1231

Andhra pradesh has r r," ". the amount has to be ;il[ :,:,:rn*il;::

¶51

We have cor the rival submissions made on both sides and n"u"o"rd"..O perused the record.

¶52

From Perusal of the Proceeding dated 27.O2.2O15 which has been signed bY the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, it is eyident that an amount of Rs. 15,8O,OOO.OO is due and payable to the petitioner.

¶53

lO. State of Te gana has not fiIed a'y counter. The entiflement of the Petitioner has not been disputed by the state of Telangana.

¶54

Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the State of Telangana to pay a lump sum of Rs. 16,00,000.00 (Rupees s ixter rXt€€rl lakhs only) to the petitioner within , .^*^] _:uss r a period of two (o2) months from today.

¶55

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

)

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

¶60

stand closed.

¶61

SD/-B. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT RETRAR

//TRUE COPY//

secrtoiP6Prlcen

To,

The Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad'}

¶66

The Tahsildar^{& Authorised Officer Land Reforms'R R'District Hyderabad}

¶67

3.TheSecretary,DepartmentofLawandLegislativeAffairsandJustice'State-' oi ieiangana, Secietariat, Hyderabad'

¶68

One CC^{to Ms.GIRIJA GUtvtMADl,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶69

5' Two CCs to^{GP for Revenue,High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUTI

¶70

One CC to^{SRI P. GOVIND REDDY, Specialgounselfor APHC' High Court} " i"'|. in J 5tli. "i nnd riri^{piiaein,-nmi ravathi, G u ntur District[OP UC]}

¶71

7 Two CCs to GP^{for Law and LegislativeAffairs' High Court for the State of} Telangana at^HYderabad [OUT]

¶72

Two CD^CoPies

GJP

PAq'

HIGH COURT

DATED:021O112024

STAr€
1
(
4
C)
12 JAN 2$2[ ,L
oo
"{-,
DESPAl(:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

WP.No.28987 of 2013

¶81

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶82

f$4 ,1a.,\r-\

Ch. Vedavani, Hyd v. Collector, R.R. Dt. and 2 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Vedavani, Hyd v. Collector, R.R. Dt. and 2 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Vs The Singareni Collieries Workers Union

Mr. Venu Akula Vs India Bulls Housing Finance Limited

Sai Gangadhar Vs III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, And Another

T. Lakshmana Rao, Vs High Court of a.P., Rep. by Reg.(Vigilence)

M/s.Imperial Granites Private Limited Vs The Chief Secretary