P. V.erkat. Reddy v. 1. The State_of.Telangana

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 issue an appropriate writ order or Directions, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the 1st Respondents in action by set- asiding the representation dt. 12.11 .2024 for re-instatement and consider tor regularization of suspension period from 12.o4.2oo4 to 23.03.2007 and dismissal period from '16.08.20'10.to 31.12.2024 as On Duty under 53-A (3) on par with similar and identical case of sri P.Manohar, Divisional Accounts. officer (works) regularized his services vide G.O.Rt.No. 1036 Finance (VC)Dept dt. 12.06.2024 in compliance to the Judgment in W.P. No. 2'1480 of 2023 dt. 09.09.2023 which is arbitrary,whimsical and capricious and contrary to the article 14,16 and 2.1 of the constitution of lndia and direct the 1st Respondent to allow the regularization of suspension period from 12.04.2004 Io 23.03.2007 and dismissal period from

16.08.2010 to 31 .12.2024 as On Duty under 53-4(3) on par'//ith Sri P.N/anohar, Divisional Accounts Officer (W) regularized his Services vide G.O.Rt.No.1036 Finance (VC) Dept dt. 12.06.2024 in compliance to the Judgment in W.P.No.214B0 of 2023 dt.09.08.2023 and also prayed to grant interest 18 p.a. on the salary arrears for the period of suspension and dismissal and'HRA from the date of due from payment until actual date of payment, and 18 inteiest on the delayed . payment of pension and all retiral benefits l'rom the date of superannuation until the actual date of paynient as per thr: judgments of the Honble Apex Court in the Y.K.Singlas case and as per the Judgment of the Division Bench of Honble High Court of Delhi in U01 vs Ulfath RaiAryas case. and also Writ Petition No. 14825 ot 2OO9 dI. 29.O7.2022 of this Honble T.S. High Court in case of the Executive Engineer, RWS Department Vs Smt.l/latham Rukmini on 29th July, 2022 and another recent Judgment in W.P. No. 25501 of 2019 Dr. Nehru Vs The State of Telangana on 30th June, 2023 allowed 24 intqrest p.a. from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the date of actual payment. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to direct the 1st Respondent to regularize the Suspension period and dismissal period under F.R. 53-A(3) and consider notional promotion to the post of Dist. Panchayat Officer and the consequential benefits for which the petitioner is entitled in view of the acquittal by this Hon'ble Court r,'ide Judgment dt. 30.10.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.103B of 20 10 and given the decisions of this High Court vide order dt. 14.03.2018 in W.P.No.15812 ot 2011', pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.MANOHER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO w TPETITION No.1 56 F20 25 ORDER This writ petition is filed for the following relief: ". . . to rssue an appropriate Writ, Order or Directions, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the 7'r Respondent,s inaction by set asiding the representation dt. 12.11.2024 for reinstatement and consider for regularization of suspension period from 12.04.2004 to 23.03.2007 and dismissat period from 16.08.2010 to 31.12.2024 as'On Duty,under S3_A (3) on par with simitar and identical case of Sri p.Manohar, Divisional Accounts Officer (Works) regularized his seruices vide G.O.Rt.No.1036 Finance (VC) Dept dt.12.06.2024 in compliance to the Judgment in W.p.No.21480 of 2O23 dt.0g.08.2023 which is arbitrary, whimsical and capricious and contrary to the article 74, 76 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the 7,t Respondent to altow the regutarization of suspension period from 12.04.20O4 to 23.03.2007 and dismissal period from 16.08.2010 to 31.12.2024 as,On Duty, under Sj_A(j) on par with Sri P.Manohar, Divisional Accounts Officer (W) regularized his Services vide G.O.Rt.No.7036 Finance (VC) Dept dt.12.06.2024 in compliance to the ludgment in W.P.No.214B0 of 2023 dt.09.08.2123 and also prayed to grant interest 18o/o p.a. on the salary arrears for the period of suspension and dismissat and HRA from the date of due from payment untit actual date of payment, and lgo/o interest on the delayed payment of pension and a retiral benefits from the date of superannuation until the actual date of payment as per the judgements of the Honble Apex Court in the Y.K.Singla's case and as per the ludgement of the ./ / / 2 Division Bench of Hon,bte High Court of Dethi in IJLI vs t)tfath RaiArya',s case and atso writ petition No.14g25 of 200g dt.29.07.2o22 of this Hon,bte T.S. High Court in case of the Executive Engineer, RWS Department V:; Smt.Matham Rukmini on 2gth July 2022 and another recent ludgment in W.P.N1.25501 of 2019 Dr. Nehru Vs The Stare of Telangana on 30th lune, 2023 altowed 24o/o interest p.a. from the date of retirement of the petitioner titt the date of ,zctual payment and pass such order or orders.,,

2. Heard Sri p. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government pleader for Services_II for the respondents. perused the material on record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Village Secretary Grade_II in the panchayat Raj Department on 06.07.1989 and later promoted as Village Development Officer Grade_I on U.O7.tgg7 Forenoon. While he was working as panchayat Secretary Grade_I oF Prashanthinagar Gram panchayat, Siddipet Mandal, erstwhile Medak District, he was impricated in foisted case oF ACB on 12'04'2004 and kept under suspension from 1.2.04.2004. Subsequenuy, he was reinstated into service on t)1.O4.20O4 and posted at Thoguta Gram Panchayat in ilre existing pending conclusion of disciplinary crimirral case in While so, consequent upon the judgmr:nt passed vacancy, the Court. _Ir \ 3 by the principat Speciat Judge for SpE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.54 of 2005, dated 03.06.2010, convicting him, he was dismissed from service on 16.08.2010 tzrue proceedi ngs No.249 / 2oo4lAs_pAs, dated 1 3. 08. 20 1 0, of the District panchayat Officer (DpO), Medak District, and RD (Vlg.III-A) Department, dated G.O.Ms.No.261 pR &

27.07.2070. 4 It is the further case of the petitioner that challenging the judgment passed in C.C.No.54 of 2005, he filed Criminal Appeal No.73B of 2010 before this Court and the same was allowed by judgment dated 30.7O.2024. Thereupon, he submitted a representation dated I2.L1.2024 to respondent No.1 requesting for regularization of suspension period from 72.04.2004 to 3L.03.2007 and disrnissal period from 16.08.2010 to 30.11.2024 under F.R.54_A (3) on par with Sri P. Manohar, Divisional Accounts Officer (W) Grade_II vde G'O.Rt.No.1036 Finance (vc) Department dated 7r.06.2024.

5. submitted that as per written Learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_Il instructions received from the vrde Lr.No.W .p/2025_A7_pts., DPO, Sanga Reddy District, dated 21.01.2025, the DpO, Siddipet District, has to respond in this case. 4

6. In the letter vide Lr.No.W.p/2025-A1-pts., dated 27.O7.2025 addressed by the DpO, Sanga Reddy District, it is stated that the petitioner was dismissed from seryice on 16.08.2010 white he was working at Thoguta Gram now Thoguta three districts Districts, the re- rtrga n iza tion of Medak District, now Panchayat, Thoguta in Siddipet Mandal of erstwhile District; that during the erstwhile Medak District was bifurcated into viz., Sanga Reddy, Medak and Siddipet; that Mandal falls under the jurisdiction of .DpO, the connected files also transferred to the concerned Districts and hence, the case is beyond jurisdiction of DPO, Sangareddy District and thus District, has to respond in this case. the DpO, Siddipet Siddipet; that

7. In view oF the aforesaid letter of the DpO, Sanga Reddy District, this District has Court, having to respond in observed that the DpO, this case, advised the Siddipet learned counsel for the petitioner to make the DpO, SidCipet District, as a party respondent, but the learned counsel refused to do so and submitted that the petitioner wi[ be setisfied if the respondent authorities consider his representation dated 12.17.2024 in accordance with law. 5

8. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, this Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation dated 12.1L.2024 of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (g) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// T^ SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ISTANT REGISTRAR A ,SECTION OFFICER To, !

1. The Sol.Chief Secretary to Government, Panjayat (VlG-lil-A) Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Secreta ielangana, HYderabad-500 022. and Rural DeveloPment nat Buildings, State of

2. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, Govt. of Telangana, Near Urdu Hall' Himayatnagar, HYderabad - 500

3. The Diat. Panchayath Officer, Sangareddy - 502 001 4. One CC to SRI P.MANOHER, Advocate. [OPUC]

5.TwoCCstoGPFORSERV|CESll,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana IOUT]

6. Two CD CoPies. BSK GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 ORDER WP.No.1956 of 2025 4- '':; ,l '-.. c) ,t 0 i J',:, 2i25 z o t sl: * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS v + ( l';::rrY]Yl'1:':i!:'.'':?;-:--