Allowed

G. v.R.N.Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC29 Dec 2025WP/39998/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of an identical writ petition at the admission stage after a division bench had already adjudicated the identical matter. The court directed the release of terminal benefits within six weeks with penal interest of 10% p.a. for delay.

What did the court decide?

Directions to release all terminal benefits within six weeks; penal interest of 10% p.a. for delayed payment; no order as to costs.

G. v.R.N.Prasad Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 39998 OF 2025

¶7

¶8

G. V.R.N.Prasad, S/o. G.Narsimlu, Age 61^years, Retired Principal, Rl/o. H.No.1117lC, Sri Sai Nilayarn, New Block Road, Nizampet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Hyderabad. /

¶13

The Director, Rural Development OffiEer, Telangana, Hyderabad. The Pay and Accounts Officer, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶14

4, The Pay and Accounts Officer, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Joint Director, Pension Payment Office, Hyderabad.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

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 isFue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring d)that a) the action of the Respondents in not making -lettei/ paymen na to the Petitioner in pursuance proceedings issued by tho Principal Accountant General (A and E), Hyderabad in Lr.ldo.AG(A and E/P15/lll/P-232t5P54712025-0713263 dated 26.09.2025^{is illegal,} arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article^{14,16and 300-A} of the Constitution^of lndia. b) further declare that, the Respondents^{shallforthwith release all terminal}

¶19

¶20

benefits payable to the Petitioner including Death-cum-Retirement, Gratuity, Commutation of Pension, General Provident Fund amount and encashment of Earned Leave and Earned Leave amount and other benefits in pursuance of his retirement dated 30.06.2025 and the proceedings in Lr.No.AG(AS6E/P litlllltP23215P54712025-0713263 dated 26.09.2025 of the Principal Accountant General (A and- E), Hyderabad and release Encashment of Leave amount of Rs.17,03,4801- which was sanctioned vide Token^: No.2601 394321 dated 18.09.2021, GPF Final payment of Rs.5,79,857/- sanctioned vide Token No.2601614134 dated 13.10.2025, PRC Arrears Rs.2,93,580/- sanctioned on 14.07.2025 and GIS amount of Rs.32,888/- sanctioned vide Token No.2602507319 dated 18.12.2025. c) the Respondents have no right or power to withhold the terminal benefits payable to the Petitioner after his retirement.

¶21

!.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith release all the terminal benefits payable to the Petitioner in pursuance of the Lr.No.AG(A&E)tPlSlllllP-23215P5471 2O2S-0713263 dated 26.09.2025 of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Hyderabad including release Encashment of Leave amount of Rs.17,O3,48O1- which was sanctioned,, vide ..Token No.2601 394321 dated 18.og.2021, GpF ...Final payment of Rs.5,79,857/- sanctioned vide Token No.2601o14134 dated 13j0.2o2s, pRC Arrears Rs.2,93,580/- sanctioned on 14.07.2025 and GIS amount of Rs.32,888/sanctioned vide Token No.2602507319 dated 18.12.2025, pending disposat of the writ petition.

¶23

counsel for the Petitioner : sRl GADDAM JALPATH REDDY sRl VENKAT

¶24

Nos.1 4&5:GPFOR

¶25

-lil

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR SERVTCES -'ll

¶27

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.39998 OF 2O25

¶31

DATE OF ORDER: 29.L2.2O2s

Between:

G.V. R. N. Prasad

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others.

¶37

...Respondents

¶38

ORDER

¶39

fhis^{Writ Petition is filed aggrievedby the inaction ofthe} respondents in releasing retiral benefits to the petitioner.

¶40

¶41

Heard Mr. Gaddam Jalpath Reddy Sri Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-III, appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2,4 and 5, and learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for respondent No.3. With their \ consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself

, I

It'I I

l il lt t: irt:till

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the lis raised in the present Writ Petition has already been adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in w.P.No.23138 of 202s, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.09.2025, and thus prayed to pass similar order in the present Writ

¶46

The above made submission is not seriously disputed by the other side

¶47

Having regard to the above made submissions and for the reasons alike in the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.23138 of 2025, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to ensure that the entire amount payable to the petitioner be released within a period of six (06) weeks from today, failing which, the entire amount with regard to retiral benefits shall carry interest at the rate of L00/o per annum from the date the amount fell due till it is actually paid. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed

¶49

SD/-P. PONNA^KRISHNA T REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ON OFFICER

To 1 The Principal^Secretary to Government,^Finanbe Dr.B. R.Ambedkar^{TelanganaState Secretariat,} Telangana at Hyderabad

¶55

ffr" Soecial^{Secretaryto Government, Finance Department,} D;.i!.d.ffib"dkat^{TefanganaStateSecretariat,State of Telangana at} Hyderabad r ,. .._ -

¶56

ffr"-oG"tor,^{Rural Development officer' T-elangana'Hyderabad'The Pay} nJ AJ"ounts^{officer,Tela nga na State;'Hyderabad; -}

¶57

¶58

lhe fay a1d Accounts officer, Teranggna state, Hyderabad. 5. The Joint^Director, Pe!fl9!^{paymentbffice,} Hyderibad. 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES -lll, High Corirt for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad. [OUTJ

¶59

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES- ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. IOUTI

¶60

ONC CC^tO SRI GADDAIU JALPATH REDDY SRI VENKAT REDDY, AdVOCAIE

¶61

[oPUC]

¶62

Two^{CD Copies}

¶63

¶64

.
. - E-r rs.Jr.f?t#{1t-ft's, \r#i',' ' r,:' i9+ .::r,is+ ?r*. ,- .s d

¶65

<br>

¶66

".{ J:.,i ..k:r'., r ,,,}.{
' .J - :-t -..:, 1^,-..'Yi.. . j, i .,-.: i:-. . ;. -...- ,' "-' -r-:..-...--: !_. t:': ' -.....-

t
i
l
i
I

HIGH COURT

DATED^i2911212021t

\ \

I
,t IE STArA
Z.
O B JAN ?[?6
t *
flt

¶73

ORDER

¶74

t
I

¶75

WP.No.39998^{of 2025}

¶76

..-.. q{-7 'r'. - r -.+.r-rifg*ittHffi!tint(b-#{+"' : t :.^-

¶77

]

¶78

r'l
+----rF-.rr:!qit!r!.?. "-'.i-'1- - -
_Dls POSING OF THE W.
','-4"AT THE STAGE OF AD MISS ION rtFrrnP.t*-'"'

¶79

WITHOUT GOSTS.

¶80

v
. .- i{..,,-r;$..rr.r: .:-

G. v.R.N.Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. v.R.N.Prasad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boggula Thirupathi Vs Sri Rajeshwar Reddy

Rangaraju Vasudeva Rao Vs Sri Sandeep Kumar Sultania, I.A.S

G.Rajini, Vs The State of Telangana

P.Divya, Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Abdul Faraz Rehan Vs The State of Telangana

C. Sudarshan Vs The State of Telangana