Dismissed

Manda Ilaih v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Dec 2024WP/34846/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court refused to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State of Telangana to frame a scheme for pensions for 1969 statehood agitators, holding that pension policy is within the government's exclusive domain and noting petitioners had not approached authorities recently.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit representations to Home, Revenue Departments and Chief Secretary. State authorities to dispose within 3 months.

Manda Ilaih Vs State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[³⁴⁰⁵ ]

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 34846 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Manda llaih, S/o. M.SaiReddy Reddy, Aged 76 Yrs., Occu. Agriculture, Rl/o. Athmakuru, Dist. Warangal.

¶10

K.Sampath Kumar, S/o K.Chennaiah, Aged 73 Yrs., Occu. Agriculture, Jawahar Colony, Hanmakonda, 506001 .

¶11

T.Chandraiah, S/o Komuraiah, Aged 73 Yrs Occu. Agriculture, Rl/o. Athmakuru, Dist. Warangal.

¶12

G.Venkatram Narsaiah, S/o Veera Swamy, Aged 73 Yrs., Occu. Agri., Rl/o. Rangam pet, Warangal.

¶13

R.Lakshma Reddy, S/o Narsi Reddy, Aged. 74 Yrs., Occu. Agriculture, Rl/o. Athmakuru, Dist. Warangal.

¶14

P.Sambaiah, S/o Lakshmaiah, Aged. 81 Yrs., Occu. Agriculture, Ryo. Athmakuru, Dist. Warangal.

¶15

P.Lingaiah, S/o Venkaiah, Aged.7O Yrs., Occu. Agriculture, Rl/o. Athmakuru, Dist. Warangal.

¶16

V.Sammaiah, S/o V.Venkataiah, Aged 67 Yrs., Occu. Agri. Rt/o. Rangam pet, Warangal.

¶17

Thogati Chandra Mouli, S/o T.Venkata Ramaiah, Age. 74 Yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o.Nakkalgutta Warangal.

¶18

10.K.Rama Swamy, Sio. K.Keshavulu, Age.75 Yrs., Occu. Agri., Rl/o. Kavuri Hills, N/adhapur. R.R.Dist.

¶19

L.Lakshminarayana, Sio. Jogaiah, Age.74 Yrs., Rl/o. Pedakodepaka, Sayampet (M) Dist., Warangal.

¶20

L.Jogaiah, S/o Satyanarayana, Age.70 Yrs., Occu. Agri., Ri/o Brundavan Colony, Gopalpur, Dist. Waranagal.

¶21

L. Pullaiah, S/o Sundaraiah, Age. 74Yrs., Occu. Agri R/o. Ramnagar, [/anchirial Mandal, Dist. Adilabad.

¶22

14.L.Sudhakar, S/o Satyanarayana, Age.71 Yrs., Occu. Agri., Rl/o R.R.Colony, Naspur, Dist. Manciaryal, Dist. Adilabad.

¶23

'l5.Penala Bhadraiah, S/o. Rajamallaiah, Age.75 Yrs., Occu. Agri., Fl/o. Bhemaram, Mandal, Dist Warangal.

¶24

...PETTTTONER(S)

¶25

AND

¶26

1 State of Telangana, Rep'. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 500 004.

¶27

2 The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad 500 004.

¶28

J Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, I/inistry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, Loknayak Bhavan, Khan N/arket, New Delhi^-'1 10 003.

¶29

4 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 500 004.

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

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 any writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the in action on the part of the^'1st respondent state in framing a scheme for extending the Pension and other benefits to the Statehood agitators of Telangana of 1969 as arbitrary, lllegal, Violative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct extension of the Pension and other benefits same.

¶32

tA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶33

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 Respondents to consider extending farming of the scheme for extending the pension and other benefits to the state hood agitators of Telangana of 1969 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.R. RAO, REPRESENTING FOR SRl. DT.NANUMASA SWAMY

¶35

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI B. SRIDHAR, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI RAM SHANKER SHAM,

¶36

AGP FOR FINANCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI N. SRIKANTH REDDY, REPRESENTING FOR SRI T. SHASHIDAR REDDY, Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

--ffi

¶38

-. ..1 , .* r$ $ , :..,.:l ,/a

¶39

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO.34845 OF 2024

¶41

Mr. K.R.Rao, learned counsel represcnting Dr. Nanumasa Swamy, Iearned counsel for the pelir ioners.

¶42

Mr. B.Sridhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for thc rcsponde. t No. l

¶43

Mr. Ram Shanker Shama, iearned Assistant CovcrnmcnL Pleader for Finance and Planning DepartmenL lor the respondent No.2.

¶44

Mr. N.Srikanth Reddy, Iearned counsel representing Mr. T.Shashidar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

The 15 petitioners before this Court pray for Writ of Mandamus on the respondent No. 1/State of Telangana represented by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, in failing to frame a Scheme for extending pension and other benefits to the Statchood agitators of Telangana as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶47

Learned counsel appearng for thc petitioners placcs Rule 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules /'lhc Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, to urge that two or more persons can raise common questions of 1aw and may join in a singie writ petition by paying a single set of Court-Fees. Thc pcrsons concerned are required to have a common cause of action for joining in a single writ petition

¶48

:a.a r-

¶49

¶50

'lhe Clourt is satislied that the 15 writ pe titioners can file a single writ petition for agitating their grievance.

¶51

Hou,eyer, on the merits of the case, it is r,rndisputed that the petitioners approached the writ Court in 2O18 and in 2024 with identical rcLief. W.P.No.277l2 of 2018 was disposed of by a (lo orrlinate Bench on 24.11.2023 by granting liberty to the petitioners to submit appropriate representations to the authorities concerned rncluding the Chief Secretary, Principal Ser:retaries of llome and l?cvenue Departments by enclosing :elevant documents u,ith a request to frame a Scheme for extending pension and other benefits \r,ithin a month from Lhe date of receipr of the copy of that ordcr.

¶52

W.P.Nos.21 177 and 22363 of 2024 was disposed of by another Co ordinate Bench on 29.O8.2024 with simrlar libertv to the petitioners to approach the concerned authorit,ies within certain time frame.

¶53

6 . The common order dated 29 .O8.2O24 r'e fers to the order passed by tl-re Co-ordinate Bench on 24.11.2O2?

¶54

Admittr:dly, the petitioners in the other writ pelitions who have the same cause of action as the present r.l rit petrtioners have not approached the concerned authorities till date inc:luding the Chicf Secretary and the Principal Secretaries of l{ome and Revenue

¶55

¶56

t (

¶57

...-",.-' ,t-'7 ./..' o

¶58

Departments of the State of Telangana. In fact, the Chief Secretary has also not been made a party to the present writ petition. The only representations enclosed with the presen t- writ petition arc of 07.1O.2O14 and 10.0 1.20 15.

¶59

Even otheru,ise, the relief claimed in the writ petilion is purely within the domain of the State Government as it is a policy issue. The Writ Court should respect the exclusive domain of the State authorities.^'fhe Writ Court in any event does not havc the power to issue Mandamus on the authorities to frame a Scheme lor grant of pension and other benefits to the petitioners for their participation in the Statehood agitation. The Court however expects that the concerned S[ate authorities shall take prompt action in considering the representations as and when made by the petitioners. The petitioners shall make representations to the authorities including the Chief Secretary and thc Principai Secretaries of Home and Revenue Departments by enclosing documents in support of their prayer for framing of a Scheme for extending pension and other benehts to the petitioners. The State authorities sha11 consider and dispose of the rcpresentations rvithin a period of 3 months from the date on which thc reprcscn tati( )ns are received by the concerned authorities.

¶60

¶61

W.P.No 34816 of 2024 is disposed of in t.erms of the above

¶62

lnlerim orders, if any, shall stand vacated and all connected

¶63

applications a.re disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶64

SD/.K. SREE RAMA^MURTHY ASSISTANT REGI9TRAR

//TRUE COPY//

I." /6

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary,^{Home Department Secretariat, State of Telangana,} Hyderabad 500 004.

¶70

The Principal Secretary, Finance^{Department, Govt. of Telangana,} Secretariat, Hyderabad 500^004.

¶71

J. The Secretarv, Ministrv of Home Affairs,^{Freedom Fighters Division, Loknayak} Bhavan, Union of lndid, Khan^{Market,NewDelhi-1 10 003.}

¶72

The Principal Secretary, Revenue^{Department, Secretariat,Stateof} Telangana, Hyderabad 500 004.

¶73

One CC to Sri Dr.Nanumasa Swamy,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶74

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court^{for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶75

Two CCs to The GP for Revenue,^{High Courtfor the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad[OPUC]

¶76

Two CCs to The GP for Finance and^{Planning, High Court for the Stateof} Telangana, at Hyderabad[OPUC]

¶77

One CC to Sri T. Shashidar Reddy,^{Advocate[OPUC]}

¶78

10 Two CD Copies TJ BSw

t I

i t I

I ! t

HIGH GOURT

DATED:1711212024

ORDER

A E o;: 7
'( i?
o
tlN
tst
:! -5
t\ +
a
r.i' l' l
.:' |(
---

¶86

WP.No.34846 of 2024

¶87

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶88

WITHOUT COSTS

¶89

P
6
T) \zlYl

Manda Ilaih v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manda Ilaih v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zaynab Aaliyah Mohammed Vs the Union of India

M/s. Venumadhav Industries Vs The Union of India

M/s Buildmate Metal Industries Vs The State of Telangana

All India Catholic Union (Aicu), Vs Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Kotha Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Nirmala Infra Projects Vs The State of Telangana