The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying .hat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to issue a writ l\rlandamus any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records relating to the rmpugned G.O.tvls.No. 142, EFS and T, dt. I 9-1998 the same and also set-aside the order of the A P. Administratire Tribunal in O.A.No. 2470 of 1999 dt. 1-5-2003 wherein the said impugned order was affirmed and consequently declare that. the petitioner is entitled for f ull pension and gratuity and other retiremental benefits and pass such other rtnd further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 14471 OF 2006 ) Petition under Sectiorr 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstanc,--s stated in the affidavit filed in support of'the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit him to file thrs Addl. Affidavit Hon'ble Court bringing to the notice of this Hon'ble Court the facts stated therein. l.A, NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 10253 0F 2006) Petition under Section 1 5'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the irnpugned G.O.tvls.No. 142, EFS & T rlt. 8-9-1998 and pass such other and further orders. Ll. NO: 2 Of 2906(WPMP. NO: 10254 OF 20061 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 pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith release the pension and D.C.R.G due to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above W.P. and pass such other and further orders Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.LINGA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I Y 5 W.P.No.80 24 0F 2006 Between:

1. Azam Khan, (Died Per Lr) 2. Smt. Zakiya Sultana Wo. Late Azam Khan, Age: about 73 years, R/o. H.No. 5'l-U78, Alkapur Township, Niknapur, Puppalag uda, Gandipet, HYderabad.

3. Mohammed Akbar Khan S/o. Late Azam Khan, Age: about 53 years, R/o. H.No. 5-L-U78, Alkapur Township, Niknapur,Puppalaguda, Gandipet, HYderabad.

4. Md.Asghar Khan S/o. Late Azam Khan, Age: about 50 years, R/o. H.No. 5-L-U78, Alkapur Township, Niknapur,Puppalaguda, Gandipet, HYderabad. 5 Mohd. Ayub Khan S/o. Late Azam Khan, Age: about 46 years, R/o: H.No. 5-l-t/.78, Rikapur Township, Niknapur,Puppalagu'da, Gandipet, Hyderabad,

6. Umme Safia Saba D/o. Late Azam Khan, Age: about 45 years, C/o. H.No. 5-l-y78, Alkapur Township, Niknapur, Puppalaguda, Gandipet, Hyderabad.

7. Mohammed Yousuf Khan S/o. Late Azam Khan, Age: about 43 years, R/o. H.No. 5-t'1/78, Alkapur Township, Niknapur, Puppalaguda, Gandipet, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS (Petitioner Nos. 2lo 7 arc brought on records as Lrs of deceased Petitioner No 1, .,/ as per c.o- dt: 05-03 2025, vide LA. No. 4 of 2024, in W.P. No.8024 of 2006) ...d ,/ / AND

1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests A.P., Hyderabad. 2. The Conservator of Forests, Warangal. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under.Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Wrrt of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or the impugned direction calling for the records relating to Proc. Rc. No.10834/93/A1(SO. N o.24t93tA1), dated 16-3-1993 issued by the 1st ----1 A respondent the same and also set-asrde the order of the A. P.Adrrinistrative Tribunal in O.A.No 1684 of .1993, dated 1-5-2003 wherein the said impugned order was affirmed by holding that the petitioner be treated as having been validly promoted as Forest Range Officer from the date on which his juniors were promoted Vide Proc No 66536/90/41 (SO.No.123lg1lA1), dated 24-6-1991 for a| purposes with consequential benefits such as arrears of pay, seniority and other attendent benefits and pass such other and further orders as this Honble court may deem frt and proper. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP. NO 10255 0F 2006) Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstanc€s stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned proc. Rc. No.1()g34lg3lA1 (so.No 24l93/A1), dated 16-3-1993issued by the principal chief conservator of Forests, A.P , Hyderabad and pass such other and further orders as this Hon'bre Court may deem fit and proper. l.A. t{O: 2 OF 20OG(WPMP. NO: 14472 0F 20061 Petitron under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstance,s stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit him to file this additional affidavit Hon'ble court bringing to th() Notice of this Hon'ble Court the facts stated. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES I , W. P.No.8025 oF 2005 Between:

1. Azam Khan, (Died per Lr). 2. Smt. Zakiya Sultana W/o. Late Azam Khan, Age: about 73 years, R/o. H.No. S_t_L/78, Alkapur Township, Niknapur,puppalaguda,' Gandipet, Hyderabad.

3. Mohammed Akbar Khan S/o. Late Azam Khan Age: about 53 years, R,/o. H.No. 5_I_I/78, Alkapur Township, Niknapur,puppalaguda,' Gandipet, Hyderabad.

4. Md.Asghar Khan S/o. Late Azam Khan, Age: about 50 years, R/o. H.No. S_t_L/78, Alkapur Township, Niknapur, pgppalaguda,' Gandipet, Hyderabad.

5. Mohd. Ayub Khan S/o. Late Azam Khan, Age: about 46 years, R/o. H.No. S_l_ti7\. Alkapur Township, Niknapur. puppalaguda,' Gandipet, Hyderabad.

6. Umme.safia Saba D/o.,Late Azam Khan, Age: about 45 years, C/o. H.No. S_l_l/78, Alkapur Township, Niknapur,puppalaguda,' candipet, Hyderabad.

7. Mohammed yousuf Khan S/o. Late Azam Khan, Age: about 43 years, R/o. H.No. S_t_U78, Alkapur Township, Niknapur,puppalaguda, ___, Gandipet, Hyderabad. I (Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are brought on records as Lrs of deceased petitioner No.1, / AND 1 2 J Jhe Pnncipal Chief Conservator of Forests, A.p., Hyderabad_ The Conservator of Forests, Adilabad., Government of A.P , Represented by its Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS ...PETITIONER 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 mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction declaring that the petttioner is entifled to be treated as Forest Range Officer from 1-7-1991 , the date on which he was promoted to the said post by the I Z. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in proc. S.O.No 12tg1lAl .( .Ref. No 66536/90/Al) dated 24-6-1991 and consequenfly entifled to be trealed as having retired as Forest Ranga officer on 30-6-1996 A.N. with all consequential benefits including pay and allowances, increments, fixatron of pay in 1g93 Revised pay Scales and also pension, Gratuity and other retiremental benefits,:n that basis duly treating the period of suspension from 2-7- j991 to 27 2-1993 as on duty by holding the actron of the respondents in not treating the petition:r as having retired as Forest Range officer with all consequential benefits as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and vrolatrve of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of ther constitution and also set-aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal in oA No. 5736 of 1996 dated 1-5-2003 and pass such other and further orders a:; this Honble Court may deem fit and proper. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 14473 OF 2006) Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumsiances stated in the affidavit filed in suppott of the petition, the High court may l)e pleased to permit him to file this Addl. Affidavit Hon'ble court bringing to the notice of this Hon'ble Cou( the facts stated. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2006(wPMP. NO: 10256 0F 2006) Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High court may be pteased to direct the respondents to forthwith release the gratuity of the petitioner as Forest Range officer by treating the departmentar proceedings as having ended on the date of retirement. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition Nos. 8O23, 8O24 and 8O25 of 20O6 COMMON ORDER: per th.e Horble Sn 'tustrce Abhinand Kumar Stauili) All these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order since the issue raised in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same.

2. A11 these Writ Petitions are Iiled against the common order, dated 01.05.2003 in O.A.Nos.247O of 1999, 1684 ol 1993 and 5736 ol 1996, respectively, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tfibunal (for short, the Tribunal'), Hyderabad. 3, Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-l appearing for the respondents.

4. For the sake of con\/enience, the facts in W.P.No.8023 of 2006 are hereunder discussed

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner is a retired Deputy Range I 2 Officer and he has retired on attaining afle of superannuation on 30.06.1996. The grievance c,f the petitioner is multi-fold. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that he should be promoted as Forest Range Off,rcer with effect from 24.06.199 1 and also claimed that the suspension period ought to have been treated as 'spent on duty,. The disciplinary procer:dings were pending at the time of his retirement and the State Government has imposed a punishment ol 1O%o ,:ut in pension after his retirement, uide G.O.Ms.No.l42 dated 08.09.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that juniors to tfr" petitioner were promoted as Forest Range Officer with effect from 24.06.1997, whereas the beneht of promotion 1.o the petitioner was denied.

6. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of his ca.se for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer on peLr with his juniors, he has approached the Tribunal by frling O.A.No.1684 of .1993 and he has filed O.A.No.5736 of 1996 seeking to treat him as Forest Range Ofhcer on the ,late of Y 3 his retirement and he has also hled O.A.No.2470 of 1999 challenging the punishment of 107o cut in pension issued uide G.O.Ms.No.142, dated 08.09. 1998. However, the Tribunal has dismissed all the OAs, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner (the sole applicant in all the cases) had expired and his wife was brought as legal representative. Therefore appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petitions by setting aside the common order, dated 01.05.2003 passed by the Tribunal in OA.Nos.5736 of 1996, 1684 of i993 and 2470 of 1999 and OA 553 I of 1999 and further direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as having retired as a Forest Range Officer and also set aside the punishment order of 107o cut in pension, as admittedly, the charge levelled against the petitioner could not be proved in the enquiry and he was acquitted in the criminal case. Therefore, orders be passed to that effect. 4

8. On the other hand, Learned Government f)leader appearing for the respondents had contended that the charge levelled against the petitioner was helcl to be proved in the enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings continued against the petitioner even after his retirement, in accordance with Rule 9 of Revised pension Rules. Since, the charge was held to be proved in the enquiry, thr: State Government has taken a lenient view and imposed a lesser punishment ol IOo/o cut in pension. Hence, the Tribunal was justihed in dismissing the OA. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. This Court, having considered the submissions; made by both the parties, is of the view that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.As preferred by the petitioner, as admittedty the charges levelled against the petitioner were held to be proved in the enquiry. Hence, the SteLte has taken a lenient view and imposed a lesser punishnrent of lO%o cut in pension. Therefore this Court is not incljned to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal. Y I 5

10. With the above observations, all these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY qRGLSTRAR secrrok)S*ircen To,

1. One CC to SRI D.LINGA RAO, Advocate lOPUCl 2'TwoCCstoGPFoRSERV|oESl'HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana

3. 'Two CD CoPies. BSK BS M HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 i frl () Eo :1g * lt lut 20a t f' P \na \\-\,'ct-tgo * COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.8023,8024 & 8025 of 2006 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS fn1 \1