Petitioner sought pension and consequential benefits challenging dismissal orders. Court disposed of writ petition since earlier appeal against penalty proceedings was rejected and not challenged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
132521
HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTHDAY OF SEPTEIUBER TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTYFIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLEMRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITIONNO: 6590 OF 2022
Between:
T.Nagaiah'sio.Venkaiah,agedaboutTlyears'JuniorAssistant(u.nder oio"ri-or bismissat),'Z.F-b.SlKusumanchi.-KhammamDistrict, Fl/o.'1 '1-4- 64/'1 , Nehru Nagar,Khammam.
...PETITIONER
AND
Petition under Article226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ,order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the impugnedProc'No, 5547ICPR-|.312010,dated 2otslzoloissuedbythe2ndrespondentasbeingillegal,arbitrary,unjUst' violative of Articles14, 16 and 21 0f the constitutionof lndia besidesbeing contrarytothelawonthesubjectandconsequentlyset-asidethesameandhold that thepetitioner is entitledfor release of his pensionary benefrtswith all consequentialbenefits including arrearsof salary, automaticadvancement scales, duepromotionsetc.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
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 preased to suspen{ the operation of the impugned proc.No. ss4ilcpR-r-320.r 0, dated 201812010 issued by the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents to release pension to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.BALA KISHAN RAO
counsel forthe Respondent No.1 & 2: Gp FoR pANcHAyAT RAJ RURAL DEV counsel for the Respondent No.3: sRr PRADEEp REDDY KATTA, sc FoR zpp The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITIO N No.659O OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri D.Bala Kishan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel lor ZPP appearing
on behalf of the respondents.
2. Thepetitione r approached the Court seekinq Draver
as under
"...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc.No. 5547/CPR-[-3/2010, dated 2B-B2010 issued by the 2nd respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being contrary to the law on the subject and consequently set-aside the same and hold that the petitioner is entitled for release of hispensionary benefits with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, automatic advancement scales, due promotions etc., and pass... "
suDDort of the Dresent Writ Petition is as under:
Z
SN,J w.P.No-659o of 2022
ii) Aqgrieved by the suspension, the petitioner approached the A.P.A.T. by filing O.A.No. 6081 of 1992 and was reinstated into service in 1993. The respondent No.3 dismissed the petitioner from service on 16.12.2006 and ordered recovery of Rs.3,05,597.50.
iii) The petitioner challenged the dismissal in O.A. No 664 ctf 2007, which was allowed by the Tribunal on 19.03.2010, holding that the order of dismissal was contrary to Rule 24 of APCS (CC&A) Rules. However, the respondent No.2 again passed dismissal orders vide Proc. No.55,17/CPR&RE/I-312010 dated 28.08.2010. Aggrieved by the same, thepetitionerfiled the present writpetition.
J
sN.J w.P.No.6590 0f 2022
counter afFidavitfiled onbehalf ofthe respondent No.3, submits that aggrieved by the impugnedproceedings dated28.08.2010 vide proceedings No.5547lCPR&RE/I-3l2010 ofrespondent No.2, the petitionerpreferred an appeal before theGovernmentand the Government, after careful considerationof the matterand after obtaining the remarks of theCommissioner, PR & RE, Hyderabad, rejected the appeal vidememoNo.24107lvi9.111- A/2010-3 dated 13.l2.2)ll. Therefore, since thesaid proceedings had not been challenged in thepresent writpetition, no relief as sought for by thepetitioner can be granted.
.+
SN,J W.P.No.6S9O of 2O22
respondent in fact rejected petitioner,s appeal vide proceedings, dated 13.12.2011 itself, which however had not been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ petition filed in February, 2021. This Court opines that the relief as sought for by the pgtitioner, herrce, therefore cannot be granted in the present Writ Petition, since the petitioner failed to challenge the proceedings, dated 13. t2.20t1 issued by the respondent No.1 vide Memo No.24tO7/Vig.7Lt_A/2OlO-3 till as on date, in the Appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 1.j, respondent, aggrieved against the impugned proceedings in the present Writ Petition i.e., proceedings 5547lCpR&RE /I_3/2OIO, dated 28.08.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent herein.
7,7 KING I NTO ON IDERATI N
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
b) The submissions made by the learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing counser appearing on beharf of the respondents,
c) The fact as borne on record that against the order rmpugned issued by the respondent No.2 dated
5
SN,J w.P.No.659o of2o22
28.08.2010,the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1and the said appealwas rejected vide memo NI.24LO7 lVig.III-A/2O1O-3dated L3'LZ'ZOLL'
Th writ oetitionrs disoosed of oivrnq libe to the petitioner to Dursue the remediesasare available to the petitioner aqainst the Droceedinqs dated L3.L2.ZOLL issued bv there sponde nt No.1. Howeve r, there shallbe no ord ra oco s
Miscellaneouspetitions,ifany, pending in this Writ
To,
Petition, shallstand closed
SD/- B. REKHARANI SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIONOFFICER evelopmentDePartment, 1 The PrincipalSecretary.Panchayat Raj and Ru Secretariai,Hyderabad' State of Telangana'
BSR PVL W
I CC TODAY
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 5l09tZ02S
ORDER
1 H E. ) L/i I_c
21 0[1 2ffi ,(i
.r-
{
cl
WP.No.6590 of 2022
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,
WITHOUT COSTS
1
1
\o
x<br>
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim release of pensionary benefits in view of the dismissal of his appeal filed in 2010 against the impugned penalty proceedings.
T. Nagaiah
State of Telangana
Commissioner for Panchayat Raj And Rural Employment
Chief Executive Officer, Z.P., Khammam
Surepalli Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
