Disposed

Venugopal v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Feb 2025WP/5022/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Gazetted Head Master sought release of terminal benefits including pension, gratuity, commutation, GPF and earned leave encashment sanctioned by the Accountant General but withheld by respondents citing paucity of funds.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to release all terminal benefits per AG letter dated 28.11.2024 within eight weeks; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Venugopal Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5022 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Venugopal, Sio. Bhagavanna Age. 61 years, Occ. Retired Gazetted Head Master, Fl/o^'l-33, Nagireddypally, Madder Mandal, Narayanapet District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Commissioner of School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad

¶13

The Principal Accountant General (A and E), Telangana, Hyderabad

¶14

The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Telangana, Hyderabad

¶15

The Deputy Director of Treasuries, Narayanapet, Narayanapet District

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of 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 especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that h) the action of the Respondents in not^{making payment} of terminal benefits to the Petitioner in^pursuance of^{letter/proceedings issuedby} the 3rd Respondent in Lr.No.AG(A and E)/P16/|VA/-536/SP63012024-1012894 dated 2811112024 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory,^{violating Article 14, 16 and} 300-4 of the^{.Constitution} of lndia i) further declare^{that, the Respondents shall} forthwith release all terminal benefits^{payable to the Petitioner includingDeath-} cum-Retirement, Gratuity, Commutation of Pension,^{General ProvidentFund} amount and encashment of Earned Leave and^{Earned Leave amount and other} benefits in^pursuance of his retirement dated 31.1O.2024^{and the proceedings in} Lr.No.AG(A and E)/Pl 6/|V/V-536/SP630/2O24-1012894^{dated 2Bl 1 1 12024of the}

¶18

no right^{or powerto withholdthe terminal} Respondent^{the Reripondentshave} ben efits^{payable to the F)etitioner after hi} s retirement.

¶19

NO: 10^F2025

¶20

51 CPC^{prayingthatin the circumstances stated in} Petition^{under Sie} he^{petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct} the affidavit^{filed in suPP} release^{all the terminal benefits payable to the} the^{Respondentsto fc rt} the Lr.No.AG(A86E)^{iP16l1VA/-536iSP63012024'} Petitioner^{in Pursuant:e} the 3rd^{Respondent including payment of General} 1Ot2Bg4^{daled 28 11'21)2} encashment^{of Earned Leave and Eiarned Leave} Provident^Fundamount ding disposal^{of the Writ Petition'}

¶21

cou nser^{fo r the Petitio} 5:": I,:t1)'Xl:t 5?3 $i,'-'x03!. -. ^., . . counsel^{for the Respclgi} ii;;;ap r-on scuooi Eoucarroru '' counsel^{for the Respc':iilil;;:} dhr'x.eA-r xni.nl|e, sc FoR^AG Counsel^{for the ResPc'no}

¶22

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶23

I t

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPURAJESHWAR} RAO

¶25

RI TI N 22 2 2

¶26

ORDER

¶27

With the consent of^{both the parties,this Writ Petition} is taken up for disposal, at the admission^stage'

¶28

¶29

Heard Mr.Srinivasa^{Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for} the petitioner, learned Government Pleader^{for Finance} appearing for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5, learned^{GovernmentPleader} for School Education appearing for respondent^{No.2,Mr.K.Bala} ft.irt nu, learned Standing Counsel For^{Accountant General} appearing for respondent No.3.

¶30

Learned counsel for^{the petitioner submits that the petitioner} retired from service on 37.10.2024'^Considering the^pension proposals, respondent No.3 sanctioned^pension to the petitioner vide Letter dated 28.11.2024.^{However, till now,} his retirement benefits were not released by the^respondents.

¶31

Learned Government^{Pleadersubmits that} due to dearth of funds, the amounts could not be released to the^petitioner, on time. However, in pursuance of^{Letter,dated28.tL.2024,} amounts will be released to the beneficiaries.

<----

1 I 1 I i

to the^{above made submissions'this Writ} rega rd 5. Having petition^is disposed of directing^{the respondents trlrelease} tn pursttance^of berrefits to the Petltioner retirement No.^{AG( A&E)/ P tB / tv lv - s36 I sP 630 I 2024- to I 289 4'} dated Letter 28.7L.2024,^{issued by respondentNo'3'as} expeditiouslY AS possible,^{preferably within a periodof eight (8) weeks fronr the date} of^{receipt of a crlpy of this order' Thereshall be no order as to}

¶36

costs

¶37

Miscellaneouspetitionspending,ifany,shallstandc|osEd

¶38

SD/.A.V,S.^PRASAD Ah:Pt1*t^lEGEr!4B //TRUE COPY// U' secrtott^oFFtcER

¶39

to ',. ,n" Principal :iocretary to Governme-nt' Finance Department' Dr.B.R.Ambecxrt'^{r Eiing'ni'State Sei;retariat' Hyderabad'State ot}

¶40

2 If;s8%fls-r,r.'oner^{of school Education' T-elangana' Hvderabad} 3 rhe Principal,q,;"orntani^{EEn;;;G ;;b} Ei'^{i6tangan'a' Hvde'abad} 45. The Director^{of Treasurres-Jo Aciounts,} t".'liJ'itJi, iqi[""ip"i^{Tijlanga.nh Nuov''napetDistrictHvderabad} rhe Deoutv Director "t '

¶41

6 ci"?"c"it,i's1i'snrr.rivnbAneoivtnolnn.lu-,Advocateto-P-ugl 7. Yffi EEi;Cplori^{iir'rAtlbe,nign court f6r the State of relansana' at} 8. I#"6tS* 8?rrB*^{scHool EDU.A,.N,High court ror the State or} FoRAG toPucr

¶42

1. 6:Et'et Sli',{:filf*-l3Hto, '"

¶43

'l0.Two CD CoPiet;

¶44

i..' PSK. '.:.. BS 6

HIGH^COURT

DATED:2^Oll2l2tt25

ORDER

WP.No.SO22^{of 2025}

1 $E SI A'€
a
(
t
0I iqAR 2025
t +
a'Es, . ic

¶50

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WFHOUT^COSTS

¶51

a @cr W

Venugopal v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venugopal 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

G. Uppalaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Limba Nunavath Vs The State of Telangana

D.Hanumanthu Vs The State of Telangana

G.Bhoomaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Ch.Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

N.Ashok Reddy Vs The State of Telangana