Allowed

K.Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Aug 2025WP/13507/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired District Judge challenged a recovery notice concerning medical reimbursement. Counsel agreed the matter was covered by an earlier batch decision allowing similar claims; the writ petition was allowed in terms of that order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in terms of the order in W.P.No.33453 of 2024 and batch decided on 06.08.2025; recovery notice effectively set aside; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

K.Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^348e I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IVONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM^KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA^{CHALAPATHIRAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 13507 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.Ramesh, S/o. Kaanaparthi Ramaswamy,^{Aged about 67 years,Occ.} Retired District Judge, Rio. Flat No.^{2104, B-Block,AdityaEmpress Towers,} ' AzizBagh,Shaikpet,Hyderabad-500008.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its^{Principal Secretaryof Law (LAand J-} SC.F) Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶12

2 Resident Audit Officer, O/o. Accountant^{General (Audit) Telangana,Fi1919ta!} Audit Wing, 3rd Floor, TSGLI Building,^{TilakRoad, Abids, Hyderabad-500001}

¶13

3 The Pay and Accounts Officer, Hyderabad-S.00001^.

¶14

4 Chief Judge, Small Cause Court,^{City CivilCourt, Compound,Hyderabad.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constrtutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature^{of writ of Mandamus} declaring lhe notice issued by the^{Fourth Respondentvide Dis no. 459 PR no'} 31l2O25tAccounts/cscc/2025 dated^{16.4.2025in seeking to recover some of} 71,748 from the Petitioner^pursuant to^{the notice issued by the Second} Respondent tothe Third respondent^{vide Lr no. PAG (Audit)/TS/FAW/Abids/RA-} llt 26t33 dated 8. 4. 2025 as^{being illegal arbitrary, contraryto the principles of} natural^justice, contrary to GO^{Ms no. 107 Law (LAandJ SC. F) Department} dated 14.7.2006 and also contrary^{to Article 14 and 21 of constitution of lndia} and consequently set^{asidethe same.}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c "()umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Corrl may be pleased to suspend the operation and execution of the notice i,:;ued by the Fourth respondent vide Dis no. 459 PR no.3112025lAccour,t-. /CS CCl2025 dated 16.4.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

counser ror the Petitio""''

¶20

?5J.:rff tA,lll,ttiifiiRrHAr;,riN

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.f : Ms.M.SHALINl, GP FOIt SERVICES ll

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2:Ms.S.SUMAN, GP FOR^: lhlANCE&PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Ms.B.SAPNA REDDY, lir.SC for lT DEPT

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 :

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

..i,-_.-

,a/

THE HONOURABLF] SRI JUSTICE I'.SAM KOSHYANt) THE I{ONOUII.AI}LII SITI JUSTICE _ SUDDALA CI IALAPATHI RAO

¶30

W. l'}.No. I 3507 Ol,' 2025

¶31

ORDER, lper Hon'blc Sri .lustitc^{['.SumKoshltl}

¶32

Heard Mr. G. Ran-ra t(rishna. lcarncd^{counsel replesenting}

¶33

Mr. Srikanth Hariharan. leat ncd counsel for^{the petitioner.}

¶34

Ms. M.Shatini. learncd Govcrnmcnt^l'lcader for^{Services-ll for} respondent No. t, Ms.S.Suurlart. l!-arrlcd^{CoverntnentPleaderfor} Finance and Planning (Pay and Accor,rnts)^{for respondentNo.2 and} Ms. Bokaro Sapna Rcddy, Ieatned Standing^{Counselfol respondent}

¶35

No.3. Perused the reeot^C

¶36

The matter pertains to the acl-ion of recovery^{initiatcdby the} respondents againsl the pctitioncr, who^happens to be^{a retired} Judicial Oflicer. Whethcl thrrrc could be^{any restriction on the} claim for medical reimbut'setncnt Lrpon the Judicial^{Officer wasan} issue which was taken up by this llench^{in a batch of writ petitions} in W.P.No.33453 ol 2024 and batch which^{came up for} consideration and stood allowcd on^06.08.2025.

¶37

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for.the peti iorro. as also for the respondentsi State would rairry acccpt that the :sr-re involved ir.r the present c:Lse also stands squarcll, covcred by -c batch of writ petition! debitied on 06.08.2025.

¶39

In vievz of the samc, l-he insLant. rvr.ir pct lion also stands allowed in tcrms olthe ordcr ltasscrl in W.p.No.3.r.l5 j of 2024 and

¶40

batch decided on 06.08.202-5. Thcre shall be no or< ,...as ro costs.

¶41

Conseqr:entlr,, misccllancou*s pc(itions prencl .r;. if an1,, shall

¶42

star-rd closed

¶43

SD/. AHMI:D ABDULLAH KHAN ,ASI;ISTANT REGISTRAR

¶44

¶45

//TRUE COPY// ISECTION OFFICERI

¶46

To,

¶47

1 . The Principal Secretary of Law (LA and J-SC.F) Dr::rartment, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶48

The Resident Audit Officer, O/o. Accountant Gene ;:l (Audit) Telangana, Financial Audit Wing, 3rd Floor, TSGLI Buildinc Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad-500001 ,

¶49

The Pay and Accounts Officer, Hyderabad-s.00001 .

¶50

The Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, City Ci', r Court, Compound, Hyderabad.

¶51

One CC to SRI SRIKANTH HARIHARAN, Advocate. [(;PUC]

¶52

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for t r: State of Telangana. touTl

¶53

Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING, High^t-lourt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶54

One CC to Ms.B.SAPNA REDDY, SC for lncome Tax I t:partment. IOPUC]

¶55

9- Two CD Copies.

// BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110812025

-':-
laJ' . .'.'.l .
i, 15 ;.r ?em
t,.-
'/
.,,/
''. i-.-

¶61

ORDER

¶62

WP.No.13507 of 2025

¶63

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

/1
4,/
2S \4'o^

K.Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kingshuk Nag Vs Income Tax Officer

Mohammed Abdul Rehman Vs The Income Tax Officer

Yadaiah Maripelly Vs Assessment Unit

International Education Academy, Vs Dy. Director of Income Tax [E] III

International Education Academy , Hyderabad. Vs Dy. Director of Income Tax [E] Iii, Hyderabad.

Vangala Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana.