Retired petitioner sought writ to pay salary for leaves treated as medical leave but not as duty, citing delay in previous Tribunal order implementation. Court dismissed writ due to inordinate delay of seventeen years without cause.
Salaries for the period 19.07.1985 to 31.12.1985 treated as duty period were not granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3301 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF TVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION NO: 34147 OF 2 022
Between:
Jajula Ravinder, S/o. Sri Ramulu, Aged 62 years, Occ. Retd. IV.p.D.O. R/o H. No. 1 -3-1 76/3c, Vidyanagar, Bhongir Town, Yadadri- Bhongir District.
..PETITIONER
AND
..RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction ,oru p".ti"rturry one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, in rejecting the representation of the petitioner, requesting the Respondents to.pay the sarary, for the period from.19_07_1985 to Sf-fi_fSSS,-0, un order in Memo No. 18.o7_2022,as i,esai;roitrary, unjust, unreasonabre, :1,i,2?:?13,:iFl;,ffi constitutional Rights guarant"uo rnourailr" 14, 19 and 21 of rhe ".:t-11.':d Honb,e court ;, J";;;i:::l?:# Iili ;:H:L"":::r,..r,"", .,a". ,. iii.
( Prayer is amended as per C.O dt. 16llgt2l22in t.A 3 of 2022)
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
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 suspend the operation of the order of rejection in lMemo No. B2l1466l2O21lZPP, dated 18-07-2022, issued by the Respondent No. 2, consequenlly direct the Respondents, to consider the reporting period, from 19-07-1985 to 31-12-1985, and treat the same, as duty, consequently direct the Respondents to pay the salary, for the period from 19-07-1985 to 31-12-1985, by treating the same as duty period, and conrpute the same for future increments, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass such other order orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(lnterim Prayer is amended as per C.O dt. 1610S12022 in l.A 2 ol 20221
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.MADHAVA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 2, 3 & 5: GP FOR SERVICES-I
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 6: SRIKISHORE RAO PUSKURU, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT
The Court made the following:ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.34147 of 2022
ORDER:
This writ petition, under Article 226 of tbe Constitution of India,
is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, in rejecting the representation of the petitioner, requesting the Respondents to pay the salary for the period from 19.07. 1985 to 31.12.1985, by an order in Memo No.B2l 1466/2021IZPP, dated 18.07.2022, as ittegal, arbitrary, unjusl, unreasonable and violative of Fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 2l of the Constitution of India and pass..."
2
PK,J wP 34147 202)-
counting the said period as duty period, for payment ol salary as well as for computing the same for granting increments, the respondents did not pay the salary. Hence, the petitioner had filed O-A.No.45913 of 1991 before the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and the same was disposed of vide order dated 01.O3.i994.
3
PK,J wP-34 147-2022
I I
counsel for thc petitioner prays this Court to set aside the order of rejection vide Memo dared I8.07.2022 issued by respondent No.2.
4
PK,J wP 34147 2022 "
No.B2l 1466l2O2l lZ.P.P. dated18.O7.2022.Hence, lhe presentwrit
petition is liabte to be dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any,pending inthis writ petition, shall
stand closed. No costs.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGIS-IRAR 6.
SECTION OFFICER
To,
BSR
KKS
HIGH COURT
DATED: OttO3t2O24
ORDER
WP.No.3414T of 2022
1HE STA 14:
k
(-,o (,2. i
1 I APB 2021
)R 'l
*
+
SPATC
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the rejection of salary representation deserves interference after an inordinate delay of seventeen years following a prior order directing disposal.
Whether the petitioner has complied with the Tribunal order directing disposal of representation within four weeks before approaching the High Court.
Whether the impugned Memorandum rejecting the representation was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of fundamental rights.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Jajula Ravinder
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principle Secretary
The Commissioner of Panchayathraj and Rural Development
District Collector, Nalgonda District
Chief Executive Officer, Z.P.P. Nalgonda
District Collector, Yadadri-Bhongir District
Pulla Karthik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
