✦ Telangana High Court · 01 May 2026

M.Satyanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

Petition is disposed of clirecting the respondents to ensure that

Key paragraphs

  • Para 55. Having regard to the above made submissions and lor the reasons alike in the order dated O3.09.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.p.No.23 138 of 2025, this Writ 11 I 3 Petition is disposed of clirecting the respondents to ensure…

Judgment

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 especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that a) the action of the Respondents in not making payment of terminal benefits to the Petitioner in pursuance of letter/ proceedings issued by the Principal Accountant General (A and E), Hyderabad in Lr.No.AG(A and E)/P'18/lll/S- 588/SP3O0/ 2025-0611628 dated 25.O7.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14, 16 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia. b) further declare that, the Respondents shall forthwith release all terminal benefits payable to the Petitioner including Death-cum-Retirement, Gratuity, Commutation of Pension, General Provident Fund amount and encashment of Earned Leave and Earned Leave amount and other beneflts in pursuance of his retirement dated 30.06.202s and the proceedings in Lr.No.AG(A and E)/p'tB/ilt/s-s8B/sp3oo/2025- 06/.1628 dated 25.07.2025 of the Principar Accountant Generar (A and E), Hyderabad viz., an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- sanctioned towards retirement gratuity viz., Rs.3,93,9931 sanctioned vide Token No.2601 190099 dated 01 .og.2o2s and Rs.12,06,0071 sanctioned vrde Token No.2601190090 dated 01 .og.2o2s respectively, further an amount of Rs.22,96,405/- sanctioned towards commutation Value of pension viz., Rs.5,65,4801 sanctioned vide Token No.2601190093 dated 01.09.2025 and Rs. 17,30,9251 sanctioned vide Token No.2601 190097 dated 01.0g.2025 respectively, the Service pension of the petitioner was fixed as Rs.Sg,1 .1 5/-, Encashment of Leave amount of Rs.12,69,32sr sanctioned vide Token No.2601934350 dated 12.11.202s, GpF amount of Rs.13,09,38g/- sanctioned vide Token No.2601299963 dated 11.og.zo2s, Gls amount of Rs.68,3361 sanctioned vide Token No.2601934441 dated 12.11.2025, DA Difference of EL Bill amount of Rs.33,423l - sanctioned vide Token No.260i 93444 1 dated 12.11 .2025, pRC Arrears (12 Bills) amount of Rs.3,o6,458/- sanctioned vide different token numbers dated 12.11.2025, DA Arrears amount of Rs.45,262r sanctioned vide different token numbers dated 12.03.2026 and FAC Hrv Duty Aflowance Arrears amount of Rs 91 '4611 sanctioned vicre Token No.2s24185624 dated 1 1 .03.2025. c) the Respondents have no right or power to withhold the terminal benefits payable to the Petitioner after hrs retirement. d) and pass l.A. NO: 1 OF 2o26 Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondents to forthwith release all the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner in pursuance of the Lr.No.AG(A and E)/piB/1il/s-s88/sp30o/2025-06/1628 dated 25.07.2025 of the Principar Accountant Generar (A and E), Hyderabad viz., an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- sanctioned towards retirement gratuity viz., Rs.3,93,9931 sanctioned vide Token No.260'r'r90099 dated 01.og.2o2s and Rs.12,06,007/- sanctioned vide Token No.260'1 'r 90090 dated o'r.og.2o2s respectivery, further an amount of Rs.22,96,40sl- sanctioned towards commutation Varue of pension viz., Rs.5,65,480/- sanctioned vide Token No.260i 1 90093 dated 01 .09.2025 and Rs.17,30,925/- sanctioned vide Token No.2601 190097 dated 01.09.2025 respectively, the Service Pension of the Petitioner was fixed as Rs.59,1 1 5/-, Encashment of Leave amount of Rs.12,69,3251 sanctioned vide Token No.26O1934350 dated 12.11.2025, GPF amount of Rs.13,09,388/- sanctioned vide Token No.2601299963 dated '1 1.09.2025, GIS amount of Rs.68,336/- sanctioned vide Token No.260193444'1 dated 12.11 .2025, DA Difference of EL Bill amount of Rs.33,423l- sanctioned vide Token No.2601934441 daled 12.11.2025, PRC Arrears (12 Bills) amount of Rs.3,06,458/- sanctioned vide different token numbers dated 12.11 .2025, DA Anears amount of Rs.45,2621- sanctioned vide different token numbers dated 12.03.2026 and FAC HM Duty Allowance Arrears amount of Rs.91 ,461/- sanctioned vide Token No.2524185624 dated 11.O3.2O25 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. MALLIKARJUNA SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR SERVICES lll The Court made the following: ORDER -------1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.14289 of 2o26 DATE : 01.05.2026 Between: M. Sa tr':rna ra)'a n a .. . Petitioner 'l'ht: Statt-. of Te langarLa. Ilcp. by its principal Secretary, Financc l)ep:rrtme n I a_rnd othcrs. AND ORDER: ,.,Respondents l-leard Sri G. Mallikarjuna Sarma, learned cor-.rnsei for the pctitioncr, k:arncd Assista.t Government pleader for services-III appcaring lor the rcspondents and perused the material on r-ccord. With their conscnr, this Writ petition is taken up for disposal .it thc sragc of'admission itself '2. Lcarned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitiorer Iilcd the i.srant writ petition questioning the action ol' thc t'cspondcnts in not releasing the petitioner,s retiral 2 benehts, despite token numbers having already been rarsed by the respondent authorities for payment of the amounts payablc to the petitioner.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the lls raised in the present Writ petition has already been adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23138 of 2025, which was disposed of ulde ordcr dated 03.09.2025, and thus prayed to pass a similar order in the present Writ Petition aiso.

#4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-lll dicl not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the disposal of W.p.No.23138 ol 2025 dated 03.09.2A25 and submits that the respondents will relcase the amounts on a priority basis of the token numbers and prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders.

#5. Having regard to the above made submissions and lor the reasons alike in the order dated O3.09.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.p.No.23 138 of 2025, this Writ 11 I 3 Petition is disposed of clirecting the respondents to ensure that the entire amount payable to the petitioner is released as expeditrously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from today, failing which, the entire amount with regard to lhe retiral benefits sha11 carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum. from the datc thc amount fell due, till the actual date of rts paymcnL Miscellancous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stanci <:losed. There shall be no order as to costs //TRUE COPY// SD/- B.G. VYJAYANTHI ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR I t ION OFFICER To,

#1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

#2. The Commissioner of School Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad. 3. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Telangana, Hyderabad. 4. The Deputy Director of Treasuries, Khammam, Khammam District. 5. The Sub Treasury Officer, Khammam, Khammam District. 6. One CC to Sri G. Mallikarjuna Sarma, Advocate IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Services lll, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTj

#8. Two CD Copies TJ GJP HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 0110512026 ORDER WP.No.14289 of 2026 {qe( l{fi 5 14 i."] U '(..r 21 ItAr zot-6 ::. /, ,:/, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS rt1 \ { q4 \,,

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of clirecting the respondents to ensure that

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Telangana High Court, on 01 May 2026. The bench was K SARATH.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Telangana High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments