Disposed

M.Parameshwari v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024WP/4728/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking compassionate appointment and release of the petitioner's late father's death-cum-retirement benefits. Without deciding merits, the court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within two weeks and the authorities to pass orders in accordance with law within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make a fresh representation within two weeks; respondents directed to consider and pass orders within four weeks. No costs.

M.Parameshwari Vs State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

{³³⁰¹ I

¶2

tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:4728 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.Parameshwari, D/o M.Raghavendra,^{Aged about29 years,Occ: House} wife Rl/o H.No. 2-2-1 10517lCI1 ,1st Floor,^{Street No. 9, NearACT Broadband} Office, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad^- 44

¶10

...'ETIT'ONER

¶11

AND1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Departnent, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Director of Prosecutions,^{Telangana, Hyderabad.}

¶13

The Additional'Director of Prosecutions,^{Telangana DGP Office, Saifabad,}

¶14

HYderabad

¶15

...RESP.NDENT'

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction^{particularly onein the nature of writ of} Mandamus declaring the action of the^{Respondents in not consideringthe} Petitioners case for compassionate^{appointment and also their action in not} releasing the death-cum-retiremental^{benefits ofPetitioners late father,} M.Raghivendra as illegal, arbitrary^{and violative of Articles14, 16 and 2'l of the} Constitution of lndia and^{further direct the Respondentsto release all the death-} cum-retiremental benefits.of^{late M.Raghavendra to the Petitionerwith interest} quantifbd at 12 percenta(e per annum and^{further consider the Petitioners case} for appointment on compassionate^{grouMsin the one of the offices of the 2nd} Respondent.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 23

¶18

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the Highcourt may be pbasedto} direct the Re-spondents to^{releasethe pensionarybenefits oflate} M.Raghavendra to the Petitioner^{with interest al 12o/o per annum,pending} disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{Ms. KANYA KUMARIREPRESENTING FOR}

¶20

SRI M. SRIKANTH

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI M.V.RAMA RAO (SPL. GP) / GP FOR HOME} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶24

MIT PETITION No.4728 of 2023

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering the.case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and also in not releasing the death-cum-retirement benefits of petitioner,s father viz., M. Raghavendra, the present writ petition is filed.

¶27

Heard Ms. Kanya Kumari, learned counsel representing Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

¶28

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the prayer in the writ petition and prayed this Court to direct the second respondent to consider ard pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 30.1t.2012.

¶29

¶30

karned GoVernment Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that as the representation was made by the petitioner wayback in the year 2012, petitioner may be directed to frle a fresh representation, in which event, the respondent authorities will pass necessary orders thereon, in accordance with law.

¶31

¶32

In 'riew of the subrnissions made by the respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to rnake a fresh representation before the respondent authorities ventilating her^grievance, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent authorities shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders^thereon, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four^weeksthereof and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner

¶33

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this^writ

¶34

petition, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶35

sD/-A.v.s.P AD ASSISTANT^REGIST

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

to'',. ,n" Principal Secretary, Home Departnrent' State of Telangana' Secretariat' Hvderabad. , it;'#;;br^{of Prosecutions,Telangana'Hvderabad'} 3. The Additionat^{oirec[J'"Jiij;';;;ffi;'tel'ansana DGP office' Saifabad'} t HII^{gd$;gffi:,I'trult#'&"fft?itrlh court ror the state or} . Ifi,'383!i;8BIo*^{HoME, Hish court ror the state or relansana.[oUrl} 7. Two^{CD CoPies}

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910312024

1$E S 14 14:
o R
6(
oo 0 3 ApB Z0Z4
zo

oFspATCH EO

¶47

ORDER

¶48

WP.No.4728 of 2023

¶49

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

2Y
b
I

M.Parameshwari v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Parameshwari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.A. Saleem Vs The State of Telangana

P.V. Shalini Vs The State of Telangana

Madasu Anusha Vs The State of Telangana

Chanda Annapurna Vs The State of Telangana

G. Madhuri Vs The State of Telangana

Ramavath Santosh Vs The State of Telangana