High Court · 2025

Petition under Arlicle 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 action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners several representations dated. 01-'l 1-2021, 1A-11- 2016, 03-1 1-2016, 18-10-2013, 04-08-2011 and 04-05-2009 and not implementing the order issued vide proceedings No.1374/GA/OP3/GHMC/2009- 3372, dated.10 -02-2009 by the respondent No.2 in pursuance to the order dated.05-02-2007 in OA No.3480 of 2004 passed by the Hon'ble A P Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and not paying the subsistence allowance amount of of Rs.2,73,391/- and provisional pension amount along with interest amount of Rs.7,87,366^ together with compensation amount of Rs.4.00,000/- to the petitioner, even after lapse of (15) years, to till this date, as highly arbitrary, bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of TS Revenue Act and violation of the articles of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance amount of Rs.2,73,3911 and provisional pension amount along with interest amount of Rs.7,87,3661 together with compensation amount of Rs.4,00,0001 to the petitioner forthwith 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 CoLrt may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance anount of Rs.2,73,3911 and provisional pension amount along with interest -amc,unt of Rs.7,87,3661 together with compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to th3 petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of the above W.P Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. BETHI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI G. NARAYANA, SC FOR SERVICE MATTERS The Court made the following: ORDER I I i l ! HON'BLE MRS- JUSTICE SUR.EPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No-30839 OF 2()22 ORDER: Heard Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of the respondent No,2 and Sri G.Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for Service Matters appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3.

2. The Detitio er aDoroached the Court seekinq Draver as under: "....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's several representations dated. Ol-Ll-2027, 1B-11- 2016, 03-11-2016, 18-10-2013, 04-08-2011 & 04- 05-2009 and not implementing the order issued vide proceedings No.l374/GA{OP3/GHMC/2009- 3372, dat5d 10-02-2009 by the respondent No.2 in pursuance to the order dated 05-02-2007 in OA No.34B0 of 2OO4 passed by the Hon'ble A P. 2 SN,I wp-30839_2022 Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and not paying the subsistence allowance amount of Rs.2,73,391/- and provisional pension amount along with interest amount of Rs.7,87,366/- together with compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner, even aFter lapse of (15) years, to till this date, as highly arbitrary, bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of TS Revenue Act and violation of the articles of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance amount of Rs.2,73,391/- and provisional pension amount along with interest amount of Rs.7,87,366/- together with compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000 to the petitioner forthwith and pass such other order or orders in the circumstilnces of the case."

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Bill Collector on 03.09.1956 and had unblemished and meritorious service record. Due to ill health, he submitted leave applications and later, sought voluntary retirement in the year 1990. However, petitioner's services were terminated without serving removal order or following procedure. . The petitioner submitted representations to the respondent authorities, however, no action was taken by the respondent authcrities. The petitioner filed O.A.No.3480 of 2003 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the respondents to pay subsistence allowance and l l l l l l I ,// ,/' 3 5N,J wp_30839_2022 provisional pension. Despite the said order, the respondents failed to comply. The petitioner submitted several representations from 2009 to 2021, but no action had been taken on the said rep resentations. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED T E RECORD:

4. On aoDro ched the A.P Tribunal bv filino O.A.No.348 Oof the Detitioner n earlier occaslon, 2004 nd the same as disoosed of vide orders dated

2.200 ln as un '4. As a specific plea has been made by the applicant in the O.A that the respondents have not served the termination orders on him, the respondents were directed to produce the acknowledgments of service of termination drders dated 08-03-1996. The respondents could not produce the acknowledgment of service of of such In termination orders. n till the date of his subsisten ce allowan retirement and thereafter orovisional oension till the terma nation o ers are served on the nce with the rules. aoolicant, i hea lic n accorda m I 4 SN,J wp_30839_2022

5. In view of such circumstances, this O.A is disposed of by directing the respondents to pay subsistence allowance till the applicant attained the age of superannuation and thereafter to pay the provisional pension till the termination orders are served on him, in accordance with the rules. The said arrears of subsistence allowance and provisiona! pension shall be paid within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. " 5 Aoqrieved bv the sa e- the 2nd resoondent herein filed W.P.No.l57 65 ot 2OO7 and the same was allowed in favour of the itioner herein vide order dated 24.O6.2OO8 observi o that the Division Bench did not find anv infirmiW in the order oassed bv the Tribunal:

6. This Court oassed interim orders in favour of the Detitioner on 11.O2.2O25 observinq as under: "The respondent authorities are directed to pay 50% subsistence allowance amount out of Rs.2,73,391/- to the petitioner within a preriod of two(02) weeks from today." 5 SN,J wp_30839_2022

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the interim orders of this Court dated 11.02.2025 passed in the present writ petition, the petitioner had received the entire subsistence allowance due to the petitioner but however other benefits i.e., sanction of provisional pension with effect from 01.10.1997 and also the compensation amount had not been released to the petitioner, as on date.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner made several rep resentation s, however, respondents had not considered the request of the petitioner For sanction of provisional pension with effect from 01.10.1997 till the date of termination as per the order passed in W.P.No.15765 of 2OO7 dated 24'06.2OOB confirming the order passed in O.A.No.3480 of 2004 dated

05.02.2007 bY the Tribunal.

9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in view of the fact that in pursuance to the interim orders of this Court, the petitioner had been paid the entire subsistence allowance due to the I i I I 7 6 SN,J wp_30839_2022 petitioner and with respect to the representations of the petitioner pertaining to the year 2016, since considerable period had elapsed and the grievance of the petitioner as put forth vide petitioner's various representations admittedly had not been addressed as on date, the petitroner may be directed to submit a fresh representation putting forth petitioner's grievance and the respondents would consider the same in accordance to law within a reasonable period.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submissions made b,y the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

11. Taki n into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counse! appearing on behalf of the official respondents, I i I ! J I 7 sN,l wp_30839_2022 c) The interim orders of this Court dated LL.O2.2O25 passed in W.P.No.3O839 of 2022, d) The order dated O5.02.2OO7 passed in O.A.No.3480 of 2OO4 and, e) The Order dated 24.06.2008 passed in W.P.No.15765 of 2OO7, The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents herein puttang forth petitioner's grievance as put forth vide petitioners various representations on earlier occasions for sanction of provisional pension with effect from O1'1O'L997, and for other benefits, within a period of two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and upon the receipt of the said representation of the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropraate orders on the said representation of the petitaoner in accordance to law duly taking into consideration the order dated O5.O2.2OO7 passed in O.S.No.348O of 2OO4 as confirmed vide order dated 24.06.2008 passed in SN,J wp-30839_2022 W.P.No.15765 of 2OO7 within a period of four (O4) weeks thereafter and duly communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petiti{lns, if any, pending in the Writ petition shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T, JAYASREE UEPUTY REGISTRAR , SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration DEpartment, Telangana Secretariat, at Hyderabad, T S

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corpc,ration, Office at Tankbund, Hyderabad, T.S T.S

3. The Deputy Commissioner, G H M C, Circle -14 (Old Circle No.8), Hyderabad, 4. One CC to SRL BETHI VENKATESWARLU Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION hND URBAN 6 One CC to SRl. PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI G. NARAYANA, SC FOR SERVICE MI\TTERS IOPUC] 8. Two CD Copies DEVELOPMENT ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] To, BM TJ HIGH COURT DATED:0310412025 ORDER WP.No.30839 of 2022 -i -{t: SI4 l'l-- c' o -) ta) /_) 19 JUN 2$6 (\( F Z t Dr-.- n laltr( '' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1--"- \ & ,o i I I I I ! I I