Telangana High Court
WP/40631/2014 of Gollapudi Subba Rao, Vs APSRTC represented by Depot Manager, on 30 December 2014
R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.40631 of 2014 Date: 30-12-2014 Between Gollapudi Subba Rao … Petitioner and APSRTC, Rep. by Depot Manager, Gajuwaka Depot, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, A.P.; and 3 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition
Date: 30-12-2014
Between
Gollapudi Subba Rao
… Petitioner
and
APSRTC,Rep. by Depot Manager,Gajuwaka Depot, Visakhapatnam,Visakhapatnam District, A.P.;and 3 others … Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order:
Heard Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner while working as an AssistantDepot Clerk in Gajuwaka Depot, APSRTC,Visakhapatnam, was issued a charge-memo on theallegation of resorting to misconduct of misappropriationand an enquiry was held against him. In consequencethereof, he was removed from service on 29-8-2005
i.e. 16 months ahead of superannuation. The petitionerdid not prefer any appeal against the said removal order. Subsequently, he made a request to the Corporation forsettling his retiral benefits. Accordingly, the Corporationsettled his retiral benefits and paid Provident Fund,Gratuity and other benefits to him except the leaveencashment.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that though the petitioner was removed fromservice he is entitled for leave encashment.
The petitioner made several representations to the 1[st] respondent to pay him the amount relating to leaveencashment but the same was not replied. Subsequently, the petitioner was however informed that the 1[st]respondent asked the 2[nd] respondent to clarify whetherthe petitioner is entitled for the amount relating to leaveencashment by his letter dated 03-8-2007.
The 2[nd] respondent so far it appears has not given anyclarification. The representation of the petitioner made tothe 1[st] respondent dated 10-11-2004 is pendingconsideration.
4. Under these circumstances, the 1[st] respondent isdirected to consider and dispose of the representation ofthe petitioner dated 10-11-2014 in accordance with rulesand pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder.
5. With the above direction, the writ petition isdisposed of at the stage of admission. The miscellaneouspetitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall standclosed. No costs.
30[th] December, 2014.
Ak
___________________
R.KANTHA RAO, J.
30[th] December, 2014.(Ak)