V.Srinivas v. Deoartment, Secretariat. Hyderabad'

PetitionunderArticle226ollheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly that of respondent no..2, in issuing the proceedings daled 23l11l202f in Rc/No' AstB625l2O21, served on 2410112022, wherein the respondents denied the benefits on the ground of dismissal of W P NO 2BT 34 OF 2011 is challenged in this writ petition is challenged in this writ petition as being arbitrary illegal and voilative of Article 14, 19(1) and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents to release the superannuation and pension benefits to the petitioner in terms of representation made on 3OlOGl2021 ' lA NO: 1 OF 202i'. Petition rrder Section '1 5'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frl:d rr support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respon lent,; to pay pension for the current period. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit ril;d rr support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to file aclditional material papers in W P.No.10863 tf 2022 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Fetitioner: SRI VIJAY B PAROPAKARI Cbunsel for the Fespondents: SRI BHUKYA MANGILAL NAIK, GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the fr:llowing: ORDER I i I I i I 4 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WR T PETI ON No.10863 of 2022 OR ER: Heard Sri Vijay B. paropakari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mangilal Naik, learned Government and Sri Bhukya Pleader for Endowments, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The Detition er aDDroached the Court seekino Draver as under: "...to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly that of respondent No.2, in issuing the proceedings dated 23.tI.2O2t, in Rc/No.As/8625/202L, served on 24.0L.2022, wherein the respondents denied the benefits on the ground of dismissal of W.P.No.2B734 OF 2011 is challenged in this writ petition is challenged in this writ petition as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to release the superannuation and pension benefits to the petitioner in terms of representation made on 30.06.2021 and pass such 2 othe- suitable order or orders as this Hon,ble CoLrrt may deen) fit and proper under the circumstances of the case "

3. The case: of the petitioner, in brief, is that the potitioner is an Executive Officer Grade-III and respondent No.2 issued proceedings Flc.No.A2l8625/2027, dated 23.71,.2021 to the petitioner ryh jc h was served on the petitioner on 24.01.2022, wherein re spo rdent No.2 stated that the petitioner was not entitled to an), retirement benefits in the cadre of lxecutive officer Grarre- t..I. The petitioner was sought io be reve.ted from the post of Executive Officer Grade_III to Junior Assistant based Proceed ings charg:s issued on 18.10.2011 in No.E3/3922)/2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2B714 of 2011 challenging the proceedingr; dated 18.10.2011 issr.red by the Respondent No.2, and this Ccurt, by interim orde- dated 28.LI.2Ol7, directed to maintain ih3 status quo, which corrtinued till tB.06.2O2t, later the petitioner withdrew thr-' !Vrit petition. After the withdrawar of the writ Petition, the )etitioner made representations to respondent No.2, dated 07.04,20.>_7 and 75.07.202I, requesting to releese the pension and oth,:r benefits. The petitioner contends * at the 3 proceedings in W.P.No.28734 of 2011 had become ineffective following his retirement on 31.08.2020, and the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, but not on merits. Despite this, the respondents misread the proceedings, leading to the issuance of the impugned order dated 23.11.2021 stating the petitioner is not entitled to any retiremental benefits in the cadre of Executive Officer, Grade-III. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing the proceedings dated 23.71.202L, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD

5. The imouqned proceedinqs vide Rc.No.A2l8625/ 2O21, dated 23.[L.2O2L, is extracted hereunder: "Sub:- Endowments Department - E.Os Establishment - Sri V.Srinivas, Executive Officer Gr-III - Retired on 31.08.2020 - W.P.No.28734/20t1 filed before the Hon'ble High Court - Case dismissed - Report submitted - Examined - Instructions issued Regarding. Ref:- 1) Hon'ble High Court order dt: 18-06-2021 in W.P No.28734/2011 filed by Sri V.Srinivas, Executive Officer Gr-III 2) Representation dt: L5-07-2027 of Sri V.Srinivas. Executive Officer Gr-III retired on 31-08-2020. I 4 3) L.r in ltc.No.A/1899 /20_20, dt: 04_to_202t frorr the Assist a nt: Com m issione., enOb*r*ir, nr-j# i.o Attention of the trnoov,mel.,tts, Hyderabad is i crted irnd re is informed that rne pcst )f Executive Officer directi tns of Hon,ble W.P.M p.r,Jc.3 ss26/2011t in the Hon'hle High Court has vloe tt:; or clers in the referenc Assistant Commissir)ner, nvited to the referenc: 3.6 the-individual was hording Gr-III by virtue of inti:rim High Court in W.P.No.28734/20L1 and dismissed the said \4/. p. e 1" cited. In view of the.^abwe, orders issued \/ide procee 1in q s in Rc. No. E3l3s zzi I zo;ie)' ;t,iili o _ r r,, reverti,rg sri v. srinivas, Execuiivl-oil;.t"r_irr t,u.t to tem pte service holds good anO nence, is not entitlec fc,r any retiren benefits in the cad-e' of txecutive lrfficer Gr-III.tents "he D I N AN DC N L o

6. prave r an w.P.No. 2873 herein on to er D of 207 1 filed l,v the n e rI ier occasion racted here u nde ri " jo rs sue a writ .or direction more particularly one in tre .ame of *rll gf ,;;;;;;; Ie!ilring tn" action o. th. respondelll? l;-il;;;s";;l1uuoin11. dated lri.l{).2011 in proceedings wo.fjljSZ 29/2OCIB where ur de- petitioner :orSl! to be reverted from ffe post of Graci: rII Executive bm.u, to tiil=.i ir ;rnio. Assistant as: beinq arb -rs iiii ;J' lT.J;.i;ffl,i:: #:iT::jj I,-:,"' r+, conseguenLly d irect the I ro s i ve .,fi;. i ;; ffi J;:5:"?.." 1:,:? t ;: yr?i, :i proceed i n gs t\t o.fi / 3; g22g -iH 1 / 20 O-8. " 5

7. In the id W.P.No.28734 of 2011. interi orders had been oranted in favour of the Detitioner h rein vide orders d ted 28.11.2011 in w.P.M.P.No.35526 of 2O11, rvln as und "status Quo obtaining as on today, with regard to continuing of two petitioner as Grade-III Executive OfFicer, shall be maintained, until further orders."

8. The order of this Court, d ted 18.O6.2021, assed in W.P.No.28734 of 2O11 is extr acted hereunde r:- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permisslon to withdraw the writ petition and to that effect, letter dated 15.06.2021 has been filed in the Registry. Permission as sought for is accorded. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

9. Since the said W.P.No.28734 of 2011 was dismissed as withdrawn vide orders of this Court dated 18.06.2021, and since the petitioner also retired from service on 31.08.2020, the present impugned proceedings dated 23.11.2021 had been issued by the respondent No.2 informing the petitioner that, in view of the dismissal of W.P.No.28734 of 2Oll, the orders issued vrde proceedings in Rc.No.E3l3922912008, dated 18.10.2011, t 6 reverting ther petitioner _ Sri V. Srinivas, Executi,ye Officer Grade-III, bar:< to temple service, holds good, and ther.efore, the petitionsr s rrt enti,ed for any retirement benefits in the cadre oF Executiv e C)t,ficer Grade_IIL

10. This Corrrt opines that there is no illegality in the impugned proceedings dated 23..1L.2021 issued by respondent No.2, since it is only an intimationr to the petitioner herein. In view of the fact as borne on record that petiti,)ner on an earlier occasion had challenged the proceedingrs dated 1g.1O.2O11 issued by the 2nd respondenr: reverting the petitioner i .e., Sri V. Srinivas, from Exe<:utirre Officer Grade-fIf, to tem ple J u nior Assistant by filing W.p.No.2g734 of 2Ott, and had even obtained ir.rterim orders of status quo in petitioner,s favour on 119.11.2011, but since subsequenfly, petitioner herein out )f petitioner,s own accord withdrew the said Writ Petiticn on 18.O6.2O2L, without the subject: issue being adjudicated finally on merits, this Court opines that petitioner is not entitted for the retief as prayed for by the petitioner irr the present Writ petition. Accordingly, the present Wri.t petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the .J 7 petitioner to pursue the remedies as are avaitable under law to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ petition shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/-A,V.S. P SAD DEPUTY REGI TRAR SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI VIJAY B PAROPAKARI, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, High Court-for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies YY To 1 2 J PSK, BS \ t CC TODAY ;1..\rC j ,,( ( -/

7.',i ,P$ ?$25 ;, 1 ,;/,, \.- .t I t,i \, \: \ I I ,i I I HIGH COUIIT DATED:091'0412025 ORDER WP.No.10863 of 2022 DISMISSINIG HE WRIT PETITION WTTHOUT COSTS G ,P(d ft"