Disposed

N Thirumalachary v. Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (Tgnpdcl)

Telangana HC15 Dec 2025WP/36442/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissed employee sought reinstatement and benefits after this Court set aside his conviction in a criminal appeal. The Court, without going into merits, disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.1 to decide his representation in accordance with law within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to pass appropriate orders on representation dated 17.05.2024 in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks, and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

N Thirumalachary Vs Northern Power… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

IVONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECET\4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 36442 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

N Thirumalachary, S/o NSP Swamy, Aged about 71^years; Occ;Additional^Assistant Engineer (under orders of dismissal) Detecting Pilferage of Energy O/o. Northern Power Distribution Company Limited Detecting Pilferage of Energy, Adilabad,^R/o Warangal - 506002.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TGNPDCL), Rep by Chairman and Managing Director Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda Warangal, Telangana 506001 .

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by Principal Secretary, Energy Department Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad - 500022.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 appropriate Direction, Order or Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. a. declaring that the inaction of the Respondents in recalling the order of dismissal by acting upon the^judgment of this^Hon'ble Court in Criminal Appeal ,No. 1175 of 2008 dated 27.03.2024 setting^asidethe order of conviction of the Principal Special Judge for SPE^-and ACB cases, Hyderabad is arbitrary, illegal, unsustainable and consequently violative of^Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia b. Declare that the Petitioner is entitled^to be treated as person in service consequent upon setting aside the^conviction which was the only basis for the Respondents passing the dismissal order^issued vide Memo No. CMD / Dire (HRD) / Cctvl (HRD) IGM^(S) / AS-DC /^DO-

¶15

C/F.No. 175g-CtO3-24 dated 24.12.2008 c. Consequently, direct the^Respondents to compute and release all the benefits Including monetary seniority,^subsequent promotions, if any and retrial benefits including pension along with arrears till the date of release of the same together with interest at the^{rate of 12 percentage per} annum within a period of one month.

¶16

|.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶17

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the writ^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} direct the Respondents to take action on the representation dated^'17.05.2024 immediately.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MALLIKARJUN GODA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI A.CHANDRA SHEKAR, SC FOR TSNPDCL

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : G.P FOR SERVICES-^l

¶21

The Court at stage of admission made the following ORDER

¶22

,i<br>

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK

¶25

WRIT PETITION N o-36442 OF 2ot25

¶26

Dated 15tt December, 2025

Between:

N.Thirumalachary.

Petitioner

AND

Northern Polter Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana & another.

¶32

...Respondents

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of^the

¶35

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶36

"...to issue an appropriate^{Direction,Order} or^{Writ, more} particularlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus:

¶37

a. declaing that the inaction of the Respondents in recalling the order o/ dfsmfssal bg acting upon the^judgment of this Hon'ble Courtⁱⁿ Criminal Appeal No.1175 of 2OOB dated 27.03.2024 setttng aside^the order of conuiction of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and^ACB cases, Hyderabad is arbitrary, illegal, unsustainable^and conseEtentlg uiotattue of Article 14 and 21 of the Constttution^of India;

¶38

b. Declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be treated as^personin serutce conseErent upon setting astde^the anuictton which was^the onlg basis for the Respondents^passtng the dismissal order^issued uide Memo No.CMD / Dire^(HRD) / CGM^(HRD) I^{GM (S)} /^AS-DC / DO-C/ F.No- 1 759-C/ 03-24 dated 24. 12.20O8;

¶39

¶40

!a1t r:r:_^.'ii..r.r:. . ..^;

¶41

¶42

c. ConsequentlA, direct the Respondents to compute and release all the benefits includtng monetary seniority, subsequent promotions, if anA; and retiral beneftts including pension along with arrears till the date of release of the same together with interest at the rate of 12%o per annum within a peiod of one month end pass..."

¶43

Heard Sri Mallikadun Goda, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri A.Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, for respondent No. i; and learned Government Pleader for Services-l for respondent No.2. With their consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Additional Assistant Engineer at Khammam District, a case in FIR No.8/ACB-WKH/2003 was re$istered against him and after filing of charge sheet, the case was numbered as C.C. No.24 of 2O04 on the fiIe of learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The trial Court, after full-fledged trial, convicted the petitioner in the said case uide judgment dated 17.O9.2OO8. Basing on the said. conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service uide proceedings dated 24.12.2008. It is further submitted that aggrieved by the judgment dated 17 .O9.2OO8, the petitioner

¶45

¶46

preferred CrI.A. No.1175 of 2008 before this Court and^uide judgment dated 27.03.2024 this Court allorved the said Crimina-i Appeal by setting aside the judgment dated 17.O9.2OOB passed b5, the learne.l trial Court in C.C. No.24 of 2OO4. As such, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.1 on L7.05.2024 requesting the authorities to reinstate him into^service. I However, no action has been taken by respondent No.1 so^far. I Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to direct respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated L7.O5.2024 and reinstate him into service.

¶47

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.l fairly submits that respondent No.1 will consider the^petitioner's representation dated 17.O5.2O24 and pass appropriate orders,ⁱⁿ accordance with law.

¶48

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and without going into the merits^{of the} case, this Writ Petition is disposed ol directing respondent^{No.1 to} pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 17.05.2024 submitted by the petitioner, strictly in accordance^{with [aw, as}

¶49

¶50

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy of the decision to the petitioner.

¶51

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition

¶52

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

SD/. L. VIJAYA TRE

//TRUE COPY/

N OFFICER

at Hyderabad.^(OUT)

¶60

one'cc to SRI'MALLIKARJUN^{GODA, Advocate[OPqq]-} 5. On" CC to SRI^{A.CHANDRA SHEKAR, SC FOR TSNPDC} L, Advocate {oPUCl

¶61

Two CD CoPies

SA GJP \Q

\ \

HIGH COURT

DATED:1511212025

ORDER

WP.No.36442 ol 2025

:) 't HE Sin
'-
o 0 6 JAi{ 2t?t
* +.
.,..
Ct,.,..

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶70

AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION

¶71

WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

,P@<br>a.,
#""..

N Thirumalachary v. Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (Tgnpdcl)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Thirumalachary v. Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (Tgnpdcl)

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

Thati Rajeshwar Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

K. Naveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Azmath Ul Islams Vs The State of Telangana

Yaragorla Saidulu Vs The State of Telangana

Gadeela Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Gaddam Adi Narayana Vs State of Telangana