Telangana High Court
WP/10032/2000 of K. Chandrasekhar Vs The Tirupati Co-op Bank Ltd Tirupati, on 30 December 2005
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.10032 of 2000 Between: K. Chandrasekhar S/o. K. Chennakesavulu R/o. 18/125, Ashoknagar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
WRIT PETITION No.10032 of 2000
Between:
K. Chandrasekhar S/o. K. ChennakesavuluR/o. 18/125, Ashoknagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Tirupati Co-op Bank Ltd Tirupati, Rep. by its Managing Director, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
2 Labour Officer,
Tirupati, Chittoor district.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not paying the subsistenceallowance payable to the Petitioner from 1-1-1998 till 31-5-2000, is illegal, arbitrary,and contrary to law and consequently direct the 1st Respondent Bank to paysubsistence allowance to a tune of Rs.1,18,182/- for the period 1-1-1998 to 31-5-2000 and continue to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner till finalizationof disciplinary action against him, and pass such other or further orders as arenecessary.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
W.P.No.10032 of 2000
Page 1 of 2
ORAL ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the 1[st]respondent in not paying the subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the periodfrom 1-1-1998 to 31-5-2000 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the 1[st]respondent to pay subsistence allowance to a tune of Rs.1,18,182/- for the saidperiod and continue to pay the same till the finalization of disciplinary action againsthim.
There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that thepetitioner was suspended from service pending enquiry into the allegation ofmisappropriation of Bank funds, vide Proceedings dated 1-1-1998 of the 1[st]respondent-Bank. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was not paidsubsistence allowance from 1-1-1998 to 31-5-2000. It has been asserted in thecounter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent that from the date ofsuspension i.e. 1-1-1998 the Bank has been paying subsistence allowance to thepetitioner and before the petitioner was suspended from service, he was drawingbelow Rs.500/- after deductions towards the loan amount taken by him. Suppressingthese facts, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition; therefore, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for perjury and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed withexemplary costs. It has been further asserted that the allegation of the petitioner thathe is not being paid subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% is also incorrect.Though this counter has been filed way back on 26-7-2000, no reply is filed denyingthe allegations made in the counter. Further, on 23-3-2005 W.P.M.P. No.8312 of2005 is filed seeking expeditious hearing of the Writ Petition on the ground thatthough there is a direction from this Court, the petitioner is not being paidsubsistence allowance as per his eligibility.
Be that as it may, in view of the assertions made in the counter affidavit,which have not been controverted by the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed ofdirecting the respondents to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner till thefinalization of disciplinary proceedings as per his eligibility and as per the Rules invogue. No costs.
20-8-2005
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…