High Court · 2025

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc'No, 5547ICPR-|.312010, dated 2otslzoloissuedbythe2ndrespondentasbeingillegal,arbitrary,unjUst' violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 0f the constitution of lndia besides being contrarytothelawonthesubjectandconsequentlyset-asidethesameandhold that the petitioner is entitled for release of his pensionary benefrts with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, automatic advancement scales, due promotions etc. 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. The petitioner appro ached 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-B- 2010 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 his pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, automatic advancement scales, due promotions etc., and pass... "

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as Der the averments made in the atfidavit filed by the petitioner in suDDort of the Dresent Writ Petition is as under: Z SN,J w.P.No-659o of 2022 i) - The petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant in 7971 and promoted as Junior Assistant in 1976. While working at Z.P.S.S., Kusumanchi, the petitioner was suspended in 1992 on allegations of financial irregularities and misappropriation of GPF/LIC and other staff recovenes. 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, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in the J sN.J w.P.No.6590 0f 2022 counter afFidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, submits that aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 28.08.2010 vide proceedings No.5547lCPR&RE/I-3l2010 of respondent No.2, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Government and the Government, after careful consideration of the matter and after obtaining the remarks of the Commissioner, PR & RE, Hyderabad, rejected the appeal vide memo No.24107lvi9.111- A/2010-3 dated 13.l2.2)ll. Therefore, since the said proceedings had not been challenged in the present writ petition, no relief as sought for by the petitioner can be granted.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. A bare perusal of the record indicates that it is averred at para No.12 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner that the petitioner made an appeal/several representations from 2010 to 2020 before the Government to cancel the punishment imposed against the petitioner vide impugned proceedings, dated

28.08.2010 of the 2nd respondent herein and also filed the present Writ Petition in the February, 2021, and the 1't .+ 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 of 2o22

28.08.2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1 and the said appeal was rejected vide memo NI.24LO7 lVig.III-A/2O1O-3 dated L3'LZ'ZOLL' Th writ oetiti on rs petitioner to Dur p etitioner aq issued bv the re to the disoosed of oivrnq libe sue the remediesasa re ava ila ble to the the Dr eedinqs dated L3.L2.ZOLL there shall be sponde nt No.1. Howeve r, no ord ra oco s Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- B. REKHA RANI SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BSR evelopment DePartment, The Principal Secretary. Panchayat Raj and Ru Secretariai, Hyderabad' State of Telangana' The commissioner for Panchayat Rai And Rural Employment, Telangana' Hyderabad. The Chief Executive Otlicer' ZP '' Khammam' Khammam District' One CC to SRI D.BALA KISHAN RAO, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA' SC FOR ZPP IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV' High Court for the siii" oif"trngana at Hvderabad [oU! Two CD CoPies PVL W HIGH COURT DATED:1 5l09tZ02S ORDER WP.No.6590 of 2022 CC TOD I AY H1 E. ) L/iI_c 21 0[1 2ffi ,(i { .r- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1 \o 1 x\