Disposed

Boddupally Pochaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Mar 2024WP/6199/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking family pension for his deceased wife, challenging the non-sanctioning by respondents. The court took the petition in admission stage and directed the relevant respondent to consider the representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent No.3 to consider petitioner's representation dated 15.09.2023 and pass appropriate orders within 4 weeks.

Boddupally Pochaiah Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^33ol I

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHTK

¶6

WR lT PETITION NO: 6199 oF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Boddupally Pochaiah,_ S/o B.Yalaiah Late, aged BS years, R:/o.H.No.11-5-143, Cherukuthota Colony, Saroornagar, R.R Dist. Hyderabad.-

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Welfare of Disabled and Senior Citizens Department, Secretariat, Hydera6ad.500O22.

¶12

The Director, Welfare of Disabled and Senior Citizens Department, Nalgonda Cross Road, Malakpet, Hyderabad -500036.

¶13

The Asst. Director, Welfare of Disabled and Senior Citizens Near Exhibition Gate, Gandhi bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Audit Officer, State-Audit, Telangana, 6thFloor, lnsurance Building, Abids, Hyderabad, Telangana Hyderabad.

¶15

¶16

The Pension Payment Officer, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstan@s stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent's herein in not sanctioning the family pension to the petitioner as perthe Rule 50 of rS Revised Pension Rules, 1980 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 1 5-g2O23, as highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutbnal and consequentially the Hon'ble court may pleased to declare that the petitioner herein is entifled for family pension regularly as per the Revised Pension Rules, 1g80, with arrears from the month of Oct, 2019.

¶19

¶20

!.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased to} direct the respondents herein to consider the^{petitioner's representation dated} 15-9-2023 for releasing the family^pension to the^petitioner as^{per the TS} Revised Family^pension Rules, 1980^pending disposal^{of writ petition.}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.R.TAGORE

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES-¹¹

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JTISTICE PULLA KARTHTK

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

WRIT PETITION lto. 6199 of 2o24

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

¶29

"...to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not sanctioning the family pension to the petitioner as per the Rule 50 of TS Revised pension Rules, f98O by considering ttre petitioner's representation dated 15_ O9-2O23 as highly illegal arbitrarSr and unconstitutional and consequentially the Honble Court may pleased to declare that the petitioner herein is entitled for family pension regularly as per tJre Revised Pension Rules lggo with arrears from the month of Oct 2O19 and may pass....

¶30

Heard Sri M.R. Tagore, Iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Services appearing for the respondents. With consent of both the parties, the Writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶31

karned counsel appearing for ttre petitioner submits that petitioner's wife was appointed as Dhobi in the Last Grade Service in respondent No.3-o{Iice and after attaining the age of superalnuation, she reLired from serrrice on

I ir il ii i

*r_urnr_lfrl

3O.O4.2O14. Learned counsel further submits that after the retirement of pedtioner,s wife, she received all the retirement benefits as per A.p. Revised pension Rules, lggo and later received monthly pension uzde pension payment order No.WE L / IIYD / 4225 / Sp / 20 14 dated OS.O9. 20 I 4 and subsequently, she died on lg. lO.2O1g at the age of 63 years. Thereafter, the family pension was not sanctioned to the petitioner tlough, he is the husband and dependant of Late Smt.Boddupally Laxmamma. Therefore, the petitioner made a re, to respondent No.3 on rs.og.2o23with a ..,ot""ttttoon the same is pending """[."i":'TT::",:;: counsel prays this Court to direct respondent No.3 to consider the represe r"ou"".. dated ts.os.2o2szrnd pass "ro;,"":oll.

¶40

t earned Government pleader for Services appearing for the respondents submitted that th e respondents will consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.o9.2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

PK, J wP-61992024

,i /

In view of the above submissions made by respective parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.09.2023 andpass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶47

closed.

¶48

SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIS

¶49

//TRUE COPYII

¶50

SECTIO OFFICER

¶51

To l. The Principal Secretary, Welfare of Disabled and Senior Citizens Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hydera b ad.5OOO22-

¶52

1. The Director, Welfare of Disabled and Senior Citizens Departrnent, Nalgonda Cross Road, Malakpet, Hyderabad -500036.

¶53

1. The Asst. Director, Welfare of Disabled and Senior Citizens Near Exibition Gate, Gandhi bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶54

1. The Audit Officer, State Audit, Telangana, othFloor, lnsurance Building, Abids, Hyderabad, Telangana Hyderabad.

¶55

The Pension Payment Officer, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶56

Two CCs to GP For Services-ll, HQh Court for the State of Tehngana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri M.R.Tagrore, Advocate IOPUC] 8. Two CD Copies SA *y

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 510312024

ORDER

L t-i;\i; 3.-
':. .li ,i
o tt \t' r{'<br>L)
I i..):. . a'

¶61

WP.No.6199 of 2024

¶62

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶63

WITHOUT COSTS.

Boddupally Pochaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boddupally Pochaiah v. The 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

A. Venkatesham Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Banoth Balaji Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

P.V. Satyanarayana Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Kanumetta Ramana Murty Vs State of Telangana

Mohd Jilani Vs State of Telangana

Sayila Suresh Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited