Partly allowed

Sri JakkamVeeraiah v. Government of India and another, Ministry of Labour And employment

Telangana HC11 Aug 2025WP/46581/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerning retirement benefits and age determination was disposed of by directing the petitioner to furnish a 'No Due Certificate' within two weeks as a condition for releasing the unpaid gratuity, distinguishing the dispute from statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to furnish the 'No Due Certificate' mandated by the rules within two weeks of service of this order so that the respondent can process the pending gratuity of Rs. 4,12,372.7

Sri JakkamVeeraiah Vs Government of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

T32521

¶2

HIGHCOURTFORTHESTATF(]FTtrIA^ITT.Tt. .-

¶3

r. oi i i',B,.,TsE " "o,f^{l,tn$f flIA Ar H YDE RABA D}

¶4

'o[?t;JE[,S^.iX1TJ,trI^if"?,,uo.,,,

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRI TPE TlTIONNO : 465810F 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

F.,,ffi 3)#1i1,;lil,;i3i,.-t[+:]Bsi5;?,x,e,ffi,j,:",{,,%"fl";J,l?.,1,,,i;

¶10

AND

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

1 emproyment, rep by rts Desk

¶13

3S[T?3,,f ijri 13"?i, Kffitts"i,l.!?B3ll ^nd

¶14

2 SilP.ffi :b3Si,"#i,3i,, [',t;,.X""&iJ^{its G enera} r Manaser, Ra mg unda m r r

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

petition under A(icre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the Frig.h court may be pteased to issue Writ or Direction more particuta;"; r=rrrl* "r'[.,,, Mandamus decraring the action of the Resporidents authorities not folrowing order in wp 3g4o ot 2o1o passed by this Hon'bre court and not setred the matter till now, confirming the age do the petitioner as 60 years as on 2911012009 and retiring him on dated. 31t1or2oos and terminating his service on 111112009 without declaring the correct age as directed by this Hon,bre court and giving farse repries in RTr Letters dated.15/7t2020 and .21/7/2020 as arbitrary, violation of principres of naturar Justice and viorative of An 14,16and 21 0f the constitution of India, set aside the same and direct the Respondent authorities to grant benefits such as gratuity, pension, provident fund etc., arong with interest till now from the date of superannuation.

¶17

IA NO:1OF 2022

¶18

Petition^{underSection 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the^{affidavitfiled in support of the petition, the Highcourtmay be pleased to} direct the^{Respondent authorities to grant benefits such as gratuity' pension'} provident^{fund etc} '^{along withinteresttill now fromthe dateof superannuation} pending disposal^{of the abovewrit petition'}

¶19

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: SRI P'ACHUTA RAMA SHASTRY} counser^{for the RespondentNo.1:Dy. soLlclroR GENERAL oF .NDIA} Counsel^{for the Respondent No'2:SRI P'SRl HARSHA REDDY'SC FORSCCL} The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶20

¶21

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶22

W TP TI I N .46s 10F 2 22

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard sri p.Achyuta Rama shastry, tearned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, tearned standing counset appearing on beharf of the respondent No.2.

¶25

The DetationeraD Droachedt he Court seeki ng Draver as under:

¶26

"...to issue Writ or Direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus ou.[.Jng-ihJlltion or tne Respondents authorlties.not following order in Wp 3940 of 2010 passed by this Honourable C6rrt u-"O"not setfled the matter riil now confirming il; "g" j"";iu ,",,,ionu. as 60 years as on 2e/ro/zods anJier;;";;;rs him on 99!"d^{37/ro/2oos and rerminitJns "hi.'";ui.u} 7/77/2009 without dectaring tn" ."liEct'"[e'as oi.ecteoon by this Honourable court and giving false replies in RTI Letters dated r5/7/2020 and- Zttl)iiiO' "a"s aroitrary viola_tron of principles of natural :lirtl l"O"riolative of Art L4, 16 and 21 of the constituilon of India set aside the same and direct the Respondent artnoiiti"s to grant benefits such as sratuity pension ;;iA;; fund erc along with interest tiil now f.o.- in"" Out" of superannuation and pass...,,

¶27

¶28

SN,^J

¶29

ner in brtef r he 3 The caseol averments^madeln e ffi vit filed bv t^{heDetitione rtn} u ort f he w P ition is un er: -

¶30

The petitioner^{was appointed asBadh Worker on} 13.03.1978^{in 2nd respondentcorporation'The petitioner's age at} the time of^{appointment was assessed as 22 years and on} 14.oT.lgg8anidentitycardwasissuedtothepetitionerbythe 2nd respondent^{mentioningthe age of the petitioner as 33 years} on that date.^{However, the office records of the 2nd respondent} were destroyed^{due to fire accident and. in 2004 the2nd} respondent^{erroneouslyentered the petitioner's age at the time} appointment^{as 33 years, in the serviceregjster and the} petitioner made^{severalrepresentationsto the reipondents to} rectify the^{age of the petitioner in the serviceregister as per the} identity card^{issuedto the petitioner by the 2nd respondent in} 1998.

¶31

ItisfurthertheCaSeofthepetitionerthatthepetitioner was to be superannuated^{on 31'10'2016 as per the correct date} of birth however^{the petitioner was superannuated on} ol.r0.2oo8.AggrievedbytheSame,thepetitionerearlierfiled

¶32

¶33

SN. J

¶34

W.P.No. 16650 of 2009 and the same was disposec, of directing the respondents to constitute the Apex Medical Board for determination oF the age, however the respondents constituted the Board without informing the petitioner and determined the age of the petitioner as 60 years vide order dated 30.10.2009. thereafter' the petitioner chalenged the order dated 30.10.200g in W.p.No. 3940 of 2010 and the same was disposed of with clear instructions to determine the age of the petitioner, however the respondents didn,t follow the said instructions. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

¶35

P U ED H

¶36

A. Th rel n Dortion of theordef, da ted 03,o4.201 8 v u e ti ron w o.3 4 f 1 db e toner ne rliero on se tr c e

¶37

hereunder:-

¶38

B) i) Petitioner is occupying quarter alrotted to him when he was in service. ordinari'iy " p;;r; ;;;"to uu.ut" th" quarter on retirement from ,u.rii". -ir"n assuming petitioner has valid claim regarding the *-ng'ur.u.r.unt of age, he could not have. continued occupying the quarter without the consent of the employ"r.^-n['an"y rate, even according to petitioner his age oi ,.uiirl#unr was in

¶39

¶40

SN,^J

¶41

October,^{2016, thus' after October} '^{2016 withoutconsent} ;i H;^"". J"v"', !: ;,", a;*," I "Xi" o'"lljl tl r"l g!x? ouarter.^{However,ln I} company^{has not settrea nis retirement benefits till date'} No iustification^{is snown by the respondentcompany} exceot harping^{tt'ut n" nut not vacated the quarter'No} steos were^{taken to L'ittnlr.n also' Learnedstanding} counsel^{statedthat t"ni unO electricitychargesare not} paid.

¶42

ii) Petitioner^{is presentin the Court' He would submit that} rent and^{electricity cnargescoutOnoi} P: .?:ld^'us^retirement ;:;;i;L."^{toi't"ttrlil"Jasreed to vacate the quarter} after completion^{oI Jg""- O"t"-t}lnation and wouldPaY arrears^{of normal} "til^{;;Jelectricity chargesafter} ;[;;""i of his^{retirement benefit'}

¶43

iii) Further,^{since petltioner is in occupation of the quarter} and age^{determinatio;i; ;";referredto team of specialist} Doctors,^{he may o" uffo*"1' to continue in the quarter till} team of^{specialistoilioit--r"nishesthe report and} r.Iiir"*"nt^{benefits are settled'}

¶44

iv) SCCL^{shall assess the rent and other chargespayable} i,11;:,".ii;Ft::tI"=S:;":::"S::ilX,t""::'.T:i the^{quarter.On mat<tng} :"1*i;;;; inl^{,rno'nit' It is open to thei respondent} .l'",r'J"r-,"^{uojrct ff'" umountsiowards house rentand} ;;h;;ri.rs"s^{riom the retirementbenefits payableby the} ;;;;;;Ia-ihe^{petitionerbut not from statutorv benefits'} rr.rI"t'si"trity^{and providentfund and if any short fall in} ;;;r.t iu",^{it may piacea demandon petitioner'}

¶45

v) Having regard^{to history of litigation and non-} settlement of^{retirement benerits, sccl cannot levy penal} ;;I;;;;";t pavable is onlv^{normal.rent'.Itis alsoopen} for the respondent^{company and petitioner,to.negotiate for} settlement of^{arrears of house rent and other charges} piyuOf" by him^{on the quarteroccupied by him'}

:,./

SN. J

B Para No 1 ofJh c nter affidavit fited on behalfof h es d t o ls a e h d

¶50

.11.. ..In^{reply to para} ,no.7-of^the affidavit, it is submitted that the para no.4 of the affidavii n., O""ri ."peuted h"re. It is submitted that a detaited Spuuf.,nS 6rjir was issued to rhe petitioner vide tetter no.RizTeiniCi;U rs:s, dared no.MRD/MB/AHS/2018/_3LO/216, dared 02.O4.2Olg received from the Superintendent,^- Orruniu General Hospitat, Hvderabad. l. ou. tne ojinion-'oi mu medicar committee, Osmania 9!1.ut Hospitat,- Hijerabad, vide proceedings dated 30.03.2019, the .s; ;i ihe petitioner can be considered as to.be.in ine raffioi'oo ,o 7o years as. he has already attaine.ct tne age?-;d"yuu., in tn" opinion of the Forensic,. Radiolog/ unO^-O"urituf Further, the petitioner has not^"ru.ituO Ge residentialExperts. quarter provided b,,h"_Ig:qgnOent companf intentionatty till date and arso not paid tne minimar-[ni uno due to which his gratuity payment has been pri on'l'ofO.

¶51

I US ON NDC c SION

¶52

5 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondents had not followed Ithe specific directions issued by this Court in its earlier order, dated 03.04.2018 passed in W.p.No.3940 of 2010(referred to and extracted above) and legally entiiled terminal benefits which are due to the petitioner had not been paid to the petitioner as on date.

¶53

Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, on the other hand, placing reliance on the

¶54

¶55

SN.^J

¶56

averments^{made in the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the} respondent^{No'2 inparticularpara No'8, contends that the} terminal^{benefits were settled to the petitioner as under:-}

¶57

Sl.No.	Terminal Benefit	Amount (Rs. Ps.)	Remarks	BankA/c.No.
01	CMPF	8,86,793' 00	Settled&Paid	Aacooooogog+:s UnionBank^of India, Godavarikhani
o2	PENSION	4,500-00	Settled^&Paid	-----do-----
03	FBIS(A)	1,195-00	Settled^&Paid	----do------
o4	GRATUITY	4,t2,372- 78	Notereleased - dueto^non- vacation^ofhis residential Quarter providedbY theComPanY as^perrules. Thisamount willbe released^as soonasthe petitioner vacateshis uarters	I

¶58

Learned standing^{counsel appearing on behalf of the} respondent No.2 further^{submitsthat the terminal benefits i'e''} CMPF , Pension, FBIS(A),^{Gratuityhad already been settledand}

¶59

¶60

SN. J

¶61

paid and in so far as the Gratuity amount r.e, amount of Rs.4,72,372-78/_ is concerned, it had not been released to the petitioner due to non vacation of petitioner,s residential q ua rters provided by the respondent company as per rules.

¶62

B' Learned standing counsel further pracing reriance on the averments made in the counter affidavit and contends that upon the petitioner vacating the petitioner,s residentiar guarters provided to the petitioner and upon the petitioner duly submtting "No Due Certificate,. as required and mandated under the rules, the gratuity amounts due to the petitioner i.e, Rs.4,12,3 72_78/_ would be released to the petitioner, duly processing the gratuity claimed by the petitioner as per t he Ptrr ne petitioner's legal entiuement.

¶63

In so far as the grievance of the .petitioner pertaining to the implementation of the earlier orders of this Court, dated 03.04.2018 passed in W.p.No.39 40 of 2OIO anct the specific directions issued thereunder, this Court opines that it is eviden t, on perusal of the averments made at para No.11 oF the cou nter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, that a detailed speaking order had been issued to the petitioner, dated

-,<

8 SN.^J

22.06.2019^{videletter No.RG zlPERlCFDVllB35 based on the} letter No.^{M RD/M B/AHs/2018/31 ol216} ',^dated 02.O4.20L9 received^{from the Superintendent'OsmanlaGeneralHosPital,} Hyderabad,^{as Per the oPinionofthe MedicalCommittee'} proceedings,^dated Osmania^{General Hospital' Hyderabad' vide} 30.03.2019.

¶69

This Court^{opines that if the petitionerls} aggrieved against^{the proceedings' dated 22'06'2019 which is} a detailed the Petitioner,^{itis open to the} speaking^{order issued to} same^{before aPProPriate forum} tn petitioner to^challengethe view of the^{passing of the said speaking ordbr' this Court opines} that the^{order of this Court'dated 03'04'2018passed in} W.P.No.394O^{of 2010 had been duly compliedtwith'and the} merits of^{the said letter, dated 22'06'2}tgcannot be gone into} in the^{present writ petition,since the same is not placed before} this Court^{in the present Writ Petition nor had been challenged} by the Petitioner^{till as on date'}

¶70

Ta kin^o nto^{consid eration: -}

¶71

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

-..*.-.'--

-..^{t :**} - i .X \

SN. J

I I

b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and tearned standing counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respondent No.2. c) The Counter affidavit fited on behatf of the respondent No.2 and in particutar para Nos.g and 11 (referred to and extracted above)

¶78

d) The earlier order of this Court, dated O3.O 4.2r,tg passed in W.p.No.394O of 2O1O (referred to and extracted above)

¶79

The Wr tPet tion ts disDO ed ofq IVrnq labertv to the e ti n t h !t h s er ts u th iti n rvt e er o 2 P R CF rV 1 3 d te 2 o 2 1 b he 2nd r s on t tnc li n h r er ft ts o d 4.2o 8 s di o 940 f20 o.r ts u h rv tha u on t Deti to er furnishi no the "No Due ertifi ca as ma nda d u d r fo eto t o t cor or on w t in two o2 e k f mth t of re of h d r du a ti h s t resi en al a r al o e e ti er h r d t t a on th r s o d tc a nis tr d n d e

¶80

¶81

SN, J

¶82

re o he tition rse kin ase he r tui of the Detitioner^i.e. ,am^{ount of Rs.4,L2,372-78/-, asDer} Detitio ner's le^qal entitle^{ment tothe oetitioner,whic} h had not been Drocessed asondate,^{onthe qrond thatthe} DEtitioner had not vacated the^Detitioner's reside ntia I a ro db her ond cor ron hin o 2 w k the fter ont etit n rfu R hin the "No Due Certificate".^{Howevr, ther} shall be no order as to costs.

¶83

Miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany, pending inthis Writ}

¶84

Petition, shall stand^closed.

¶85

s t-T. SRINTVASA^REDDY STANT^REGISTRAR

¶86

//TRUE^COPY// sLcnou^oFFlcER

¶87

To, 1 The Desk Office^{(C-ll), Ministry-of Labour and employment' Rafi Marg' New} Oelhi Couetnment^{of lndia-1 10011 '}

¶88

2 The General^{Manager, Singareni CollieriesCo Ltd' Ramgundamll Division'} Godavari^{Khani, Karimnagar'}

¶89

One CC to^{SRI P.ACHUT RAMASHASTRY' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶90

3 4 One CC to^{SRI P.SRIHARSHA REDDY' SC FOR SCCL [OPUC]}

¶91

4 5 One CC to^{Dv. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA'HighCourt for the State of} i"iung"n,^{at'HYderabad tOPUCI}

¶92

6 Two CD CoPies BSR PVL

cc^TO D

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^11tOBl2O25

ORDER

WP.No.46581^{of 2022}

¶98

(l
a l:'
a<br>-t
i-, qlP ?[?5
. /, - t.. .
I

¶99

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶100

br{

Sri JakkamVeeraiah v. Government of India and another, Ministry of Labour And employment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri JakkamVeeraiah v. Government of India and another, Ministry of Labour And employment

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

S. Veera Naresh Vs The Government of Telangana And 3 Others

L. Satya Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

B.Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Syed Abdul Qaiyum Vs The State of Telangana

G. Prasad Vs The State of Telangana And 3 Others

V.Govardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana