Disposed

M. Chandra Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Feb 2025WP/3212/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Sub-Inspector sought a writ directing release of his retirement benefits including gratuity, commutation, leave encashment, GPF, surrender and PRC arrears. The Government Pleader stated bills were processed but funds were lacking. The Court disposed the petition directing release within eight weeks, without costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to release retirement/pensionary benefits within eight weeks; no costs.

M. Chandra Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3212 0F 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

ftl _Claq,Org,neO9X,919.B^hoom^Reddy,^{age.62years,Retd.Sub tnspectorotpotice} lGplef?l .No:,^{1q'1?9)0/o.. CyberabadpoticeCommissioneratb,Gachibowti,} L:yberabad. R/o. H.No. 6-_53,. Bhavanipuram, Road No. 38, NSL Colony Road, Ameenpur lvlandal, Sanga Reddy District.

¶10

....,PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The State of Telangana, rept. by its principal Secretary, Finance Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telangana, rept.by its principal Secretary, Home (police) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Government of Telangana, lnsurance Buildings, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Treasury Officer, Collectorate Office Complex, Kongarkalan, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 an order or direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of l/andamus, declare the impugned action of the respondents in not releasing the retirement/pensionary benefits such as Gratuity (TS) amount of Rs. 89,206/- with roken No.25221914os dr.27.9.2024 and Gratuity (cs) amount of Rs. 15,10,794l- with Token No. 2522191395, dt. 27.9.2024, Commutation (TS) amount of Rs. 1,'l 5,861/- with Token no. 2522791368, dt. 27.9.2024 and commutation (cS) amount of Rs. rg,62,228r- with roken No. 2s227g13s4, dt. 27 .9.2024, Leave Encashment amount of Rs 1 6,02,5g0/_ with Token No.

¶18

2523030956, dt. 26^{10.2024, dt. 24.5.2024,General Provident Fund amount of "} Rs. 7,63,549/- with^{Token No. 2523046509, dt. 20 9 2024,Addl'Surrender} amountofRs.26,710/-withtokenno.2522743693'dt2392024andPRC Arrears amount of^{Rs. 29,867xl2equalto 3,58,404/- with Token no'} 2522963159.252.2963148,2522963135,2522963120,2522963157' 2522963 1 43, 25229^{6iJ 1 3 1} .^{2522s 63 1 1 7, 2522963 1 52, 25229631 39, 25229631 2 4} and 2522963190^{dt. ill .10.2024 is illegal, arbitrary, unfair, unjust, discrimination,} apart from violation^{of all the statutory Rules and constitutional provisions and} consequen^y direct^{the respondentsto release and pay the saidpensionary} benefits with interest @^{l8percentage per annumfrom date of retirementto till} the date of actual Payment^{is made.}

¶19

|.A.NO.1 0F 2025

¶20

Petition Under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstaneesstated} in the affidavit filed irr support^{of the petition,the High court maybe pleasedto} direct the responderrt to^{release the retirement/pensio nary benefitssuch as} Gratuity^(TS) amount of^{Rs. 89,206/-with Token No.25227914O5 dt.27'9'2024} and Gratuity (CS) arrount of^{Rs. 15,10,794l-with Token No. 2522791395' dt'} 27.9.2024, Commutation^{(TS) amount of Rs. 1,15,861/-with Token no'} 2522791368, dt. 27.t).2024 and^{Commutation (CS) amount of Rs. 19,62,2281-} with Token No. 2522:.791354,^{dl. 27.9.2024, Leave Encashmentamountof Rs} 16,02,5801with Token No.^{2523030956,dt. 26.10-2024' dt. 24.5.',?-O24,General} Provident Fund amount of Rs.^{7,63,549/-with Token No 25i13046509, dt.} 20.9.2024, Addl.Surrr:nder amount^{of Rs. 26,710/- with token no 25227 43693} ' dt. 23.9.2024 and PRC^{Arrears amountof Rs. 29,867 x 12=3,58,4O4l-with} Token no. 25229631 59. 25229631 48,^{2522963135,2522,963120 2522963157'} 2522963 1 43, 25229 63^{1 3} 1, 2522963^{1 1 7, 25229 63 1 52,2 52 29 63 1 39, 25229631 24} and 2522963190 to the^{petitioner forthwith pending disposalof writ petition.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.SAI^REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 &^{4 :} GP^{FOR SERVICES} -^Ill

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 : GP^{FOR HOME}

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO '

¶26

llrRIT PETITION No.3212 OF 2025^.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage.

¶29

Heard Mr. C. Sai Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.2.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2024 and till now, his retirement benefits were not released by the respondents.

¶31

Learned Government Pleader submits that the bills^pertaining to the retirement beneFits of the^petitioner are already^processed. However, due to dearth of funds, the amounts could not be released to the petitioner on time. Learned Government Pleader^further submits that as^per seriatim of the token numbers, amounts^will be released to the beneficia ries.

¶32

Having regard to the above submissions, this Writ^petitionis disposed of directing the respondents to release^the retirement/pensiona ry benefits such as Gratuity^(TS) amount^of

¶33

Rs.89,206/- with Token^{No.252279L405,dated 27.09.,1024and} Gratuity (CS) amount oF^{Rs.ls,lO,794/-withToken} No.2522791.395, dated 27.09.2024,^{Commutation(TS) amount of} Rs.1,15,861/- wth Token No.2522791368.^{dated 27.09.2024and} Commutation (CS) amount of^{Rs.19,62,228/-withToken} No.2522797354, dated 27.09.2024, Leave^{Encashmentamount of} Rs.16,02,580/- with Token^{No.2523030956,dated 26.10.2024,} dated 24.05.202.1, General Provident^{Fund amount of Rs.7,63,549/-} with Token No..2523046509, dated 20.09.2024, Addl.^liurrender amount of R.s.26,7tO/- with token^{No.252274369.1,dated} 23.09.2024 and PRC Arrears amount of Rs.29,867 x^1,2 3,58,404/- with Token Nos.2522963159,^2522963L48, 2522963L35, 2522963t20, 2522963t57,^2522963143, 2522963t3t, 2522963117, 25229631.52,^2522963139, 2522963124 and 2522963190, dated 21.LO.2024,^pertaining to^the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a^period of eight (B) weeks from the date of recelpt of a copy of this order. There shall be nc order as to costs.

¶34

Miscellanec,us petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/. L. LAKSHMI BABU ASSI STRAR

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

FFICER

¶38

To 1. The Principal Sr:cretary,^{Finance Department Secretariat, State of Telangana} at Hyderabad.

¶39

The Principal Secretary,^{Home(Police) Department, Secretariat, State of} Telangana at Hvderabad.

¶40

(N't

¶41

't l

¶42

3 The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Government of Telangana, lnsurance Buildings, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶43

4 The District Treasury Officer, Collectorate Office Complex, Kongarkalan, Ranga Reddy Distrlct.

¶44

5 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-Ill, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶45

Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶46

7 One CC to SRI C.SAI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] o Two CD Copies

SA GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510212025

ORDER

WP.No.3212 of 2025

1H t. S i4 |
e i(
c (',.
(.) 1B fEB 20fi ?-
C)
?1.',.
.t +
\1.

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶54

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶55

\\ /----

M. Chandra Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Chandra Reddy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akula Jagadeeshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Sameena Parveen Vs The State of Telangana

Mandapally Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana

Prof. K. S. Sudheer Reddy Vs Osmania University

Abdul Zameer Vs The State of Telangana

M. Padmamma Vs The State of Telangana