Disposed

K Narayana Reddy v. Tsrtc

Telangana HC5 Mar 2024WP/4240/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A former TSRTC conductor sought release of terminal benefits via a writ petition. Without examining merits, the court disposed of the petition at admission stage, directing the Depot Manager to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.03.2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Depot Manager directed to consider representation dt. 27.03.2023 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks; no costs.

K Narayana Reddy Vs Tsrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^330r ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

, THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEPULLA KARTHIK}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:4240^{OF 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

K Narayana Reddy,^{S/o. Late K. Yella Reddy, Agedabout--58,^Y9?'^t-} No. 4-i-1013, occ.Lonductor^{New Ragevndra Nagar colony,upp Jonnson} Grammer School, Nacharam,^{Hyderabad-500073'}

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 TSRTC, ReP^bY its Managing Director,^{RTC X Roads,Musheerabad,} Hyderabad.

¶12

The Regional^{Manager, TSRTC, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad}

¶13

The Depot^{Manager,TSRTC, Uppal Depot, Uppal,Hyderabad'}

¶14

..RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article^{226 of lhe constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filedtherewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue an order or^{orders or writmore particularly in the nature of writ} of mandamus declaring^{the actionof the Resporidentin not payingthe terminal} benefitstothepetitionerfortheservicesrenderedtothecorporationandasthe sameisillegal,arbitrary'unjustandconsequentlydirecttherespondentsto release the terminal^{benefits of the petitioner as requested on the representation} 271O3t2023.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under section 151^{cPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} dispose of the^{petitioner's applicationdt. 27tO312023 in respect to paymentof} terminal benefits Pending^{disposed for the Writ Petition} ounse or e e oner:

¶18

Counsel for the^{Respondents:SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC}

¶19

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶21

trTRIT PETITION No.4240 of 2024

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This writ petition is Iiled seeking the following relief:

¶24

"...to issue an order or orders or writ more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action oi the Respondent in not paying the terminal benefits ro the petitioner for the services rendered to the corporation and as the same is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the respondents to release the terminal benelits of the petitioner as requested on the representation dated 27.O3-2O23 and pass such the order or orders as deemed fit proper of the circumstance of the case."

¶25

Heard Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶26

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appornted as conductor in the year lgg4 and his services were regularized on 01 .o3. rgg6 and t l 24.10.2022, he worked at Musheerabad Depot. while so, the petitioner was terminated from services in the year 20o4. Thereafter, as per the orders of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service with continuity of service without back wages and continuously worked with effect from 25.05.2oo6. Thereafter, once again on 19.o6.201o, the petitioner was terminated from services on the ground of unauthorized absence. Against which, he preferred an appeal to the Divisional Manager, Hyderabad Division on or.o2.2or2. But, no orders have been passed. Further, the petitioner has made a representation to the 3'd respondent on 27.o3.2o23 requesting to settre his service benefrts and the same is still pending with the authorities. Hence, the learned counsel

I li

prays this Court to direct the 3.d respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.O3.2O23, in accordance with law.

¶32

4' Learned standing counsel for the respondent-corporation submits that the respondents will consider the representation of t].e petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶33

In view of the submissions made by both the Counsel, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3'a respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.03.2023, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶34

order.

¶35

SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Managing Director, TSRTC, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

¶40

The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad.

¶41

The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Uppal Depot, Uppal, Hyderabad.

¶42

One CC to SRI G.NARESH KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶43

One CC to SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC TOPUCI

¶44

Two CD Copies

BSR KKSw

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0510312024

_t ,t
;il
l it :, i!

ORDER

WP.No.4240 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶52

WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

g.d"a

¶54

#'t"

K Narayana Reddy v. Tsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Narayana Reddy v. Tsrtc

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

Smt. Thotakure Narsamma Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. T. Rakesh Singh Vs The State of Telangana

D.Vijaya Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Daravath Jyoti Vs The State of Telangana

Seethavar Kishan Vs The State of Telangana

Pathlavath Mounika Vs The State of Telangana