Disposed

B.Emmanuel v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Apr 2025WP/9921/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Technical Officer sought release of his gratuity and commutation amounts withheld despite processed bills. The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to pay both amounts expeditiously, preferably within ten weeks, with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to release gratuity of Rs.3,74,579/- and commutation of Rs.7,90,171/- within preferably ten weeks; no costs.

B.Emmanuel Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:9921 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

B.Fmmanuel, S/o Swamidass, aged about 63 years, Rtd.Technical Officer. office Of Executive Ensineer, K-ateshwaram iroject, NE;;;i;;d bi"lffi;: Nizamabad District. R/6 H.nb.j-++72s,-SC b;t'"d: CC;;-K;r;il;;: (PPO.No.02-01 4477 ISP)

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 If :lll"_,9f_T^"tangana,. rept..by its Spt. Chief Secretary, Finance Department ^^{ano Htanntng secretariat,Hyderabad.}

¶13

The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Government of Telangana,

¶14

^^{InsuranceBuildings,Abids, Hyderabad. '} 3. The District Treasury Officer, fuizamabad, Nizamabad District.

¶15

The suqqrintending-Enginee(sE), rndiiJFtooo rtow canatiiirc;, circre ttlt and CAD), LMD Cotony, Karirirnalar.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ol the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decrare the impugned action of the respondents in not releasing and paying the retirement benefits i.e. Gratuity(TS) amount of Rs. 3'7 4'5791 - with roken No.2s22z 40554 dt.21 -og-2o24, commutation(TS) amount of Rs. 7,90.171i- with roken No. 2s22740ss2 dt.21-og-2o24 is illegal, arbitrary, unfair, unjust, discrimination, apart from violation of all the statutory Rules and constitutional provisions and consequenfly direct the respondents to release and pay above mentioned benefits to the petitioner with interest @ 24 percentage per annum from date of retirement to till the date of actual payment is made.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under ljection^'151 cPc^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in^{sr-rpport of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to direct} the respondents^{fo rt} rwith to^{release and pay the retirement benefitsof the} petitioner such as i,e. Gratuity(TS) amount^{of Rs. 3,74,5791 with Token} No.2522740554 dt.121-OS-2O24,^{Commutation(TS)amount of Rs' l',90,1711with} Token No. 252274051:;2 d1.21-09-2024^{pending disposalof main writ petition.}

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{P.UGENDER REDDY} Counsel for the Resprondent^{Nos.1 TO 3: GP FORFINANCE PLANNING} Counsel for the Re:;Srondent^{No.4:GP FORlRRl & CAD}

¶21

The Court made thr:^{lbllowing:ORDER}

, t

t I

? )

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU R,AIESHWAR RAO

¶26

w ITP ITIO NNo 992t oF 20 25

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

with the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage.

¶29

Heard Mr.^p.Ugender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government pleader for Finance appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Government pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development Department appearing for respondent No.4.

¶30

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2020 and tiil now, his retirement benefits were not released by the respondents.

¶31

Learned Government pleader submits that the bills pertaining to the retirement benefits of the petitioner are already processed. However, due to dearth of funds, the amounts could not be released to the petitioner on time. Learned Government preader further submits that as per seriatim of the token numbers, amounts will be released to the beneficiaries.

¶32

Having regard to the above submissions, this Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release Gratuity (TS)

¶33

amount of^{Rs..,i,74,5791- with Token No'252274055'4dated} 21.0g.2024,^{Corlmutation (TS) amount of Rs'7'90'171/-with} Token No.252;2"40552^{dated 2r'og'2024' pertainingtothe} petitioner, as^{expeditiouslyas possible' preferably within a period of} ten (10)^{weeks 'rom the date of receipt of a copy of this order'} There shall^{be rrcr orderas to costs'}

¶34

Miscellanec,us^{petitions pending,if any, shall stand closed'}

¶35

SD/-P.PADMANABHA^REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// iN \

¶36

;"; OFFICER

¶37

¶38

1 TheSol.Chit>fSecretary,FinanceDepartmentandPlanningSecretariat' Hvderbbad, {it ate of Telangana.

¶39

2 i6" bireCtor ol Treasuriesihd^{Accounts, Governmentof Telangana,} lnsurance^{Buril,iings,Abids,Hyderabad.}

¶40

J tn" Oi.tri"t 1'n.'as"ury Officer,^{Nizamabad,NizamabadDistrict'} 4 iii" Si,d"ii"iu,iaNgtngineer(sE),^{tndira Ftood Ftowcanat(tFFC),circlelr(l} and cAD). LIvlr) colony, Karimnagar.

¶41

5 orre aCt,c SRI P.UGENDER^{REDDY, Advocate} [OPUC] b i*. ccr'L^,;t, ronFtr.tnNcE^{PLANNING, Higti court for the State of} Telanoana. art Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶42

7 r*o icJioi:'Fon tCnt^d cno,^{High court for the Stateof l-elangana, at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶43

o Two CD Copies

¶44

PSK. LS

t
<br>

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210412025

ORDER

WP.No.9921 af²⁰²⁵

t, STATE
{
.t
?s6
Cl_) $$ fiPfl LC;
I
* C

¶52

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT CCISTS

¶53

<br>0 ,r\ er

B.Emmanuel v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Emmanuel 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

Mamidishetty Harish Vs The State of Telangana

B. Krishna Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Ch.Ravindar, Vs The State of Telangana

V.Yellesha Vs The State of Telangana

M.Mallaiah Vs The-State of Telangana

Gaddam Santhosh Reddy Vs The State of Telangana