Telangana High Court

WP/37840/2013 of Waheed Khan, Vs The Depot Manager, on 31 December 2013

SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.37840 of 2013 Date: 31.12.2013 Between : Waheed Khan .… Petitioner and The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., BHEL Depot, Hyderabad and another …. Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

WRIT PETITION No.37840 of 2013

Date: 31.12.2013

Between :

Waheed Khan .… Petitionerand

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.,BHEL Depot, Hyderabad and another

…. Respondents

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

WRIT PETITION No.37840 of 2013

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitionerand Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel forAndhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) forrespondents.

2. The petitioner, a Mechanic (Grade-II) in APSRTC, is seekinga writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in notcalculating retirement benefits so as to be paid to him soon afterretirement on 31.12.2013. The petitioner has approached thisCourt on reasonable apprehension that the benefits will not be paidto him within reasonable time in view of his past experience.

3. The petitioner was removed from service on 20.10.2000. Heobtained an Award to reinstate him with continuity of service butwithout back wages and attendant benefits in I.D.No.62 of 2005from the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad on 18.06.2008. But theAward was not given effect to though it was published in theGazette vide G.O.Rt.No.1488 dated 05.07.2008. He wascompelled to approach this court in W.P.No.4587 of 2012 seekingimplementation of the Award and this Court by order, dated02.03.2012, issued a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 thereinto consider his representations and pass appropriate orders. Hewas ultimately given reinstatement only on 28.04.2012 underthreat of contempt in C.C.No.402 of 2012.

Page 1 of 2

4. The petitioner is retiring on 31.12.2013. However, no steps,as required under the procedure, have been taken to settle the retirement benefits soon after the retirement. The petitioner statesthat the respondents are not likely to release the benefits with aview to cause hardship to him as he had approached the courtearlier.

5. Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel hastaken notice on behalf of the respondents and represents thatsteps are being taken for early release of the retirement benefitspayable to the petitioner as per his entitlement.

6. In view of the submission made on behalf of therespondents, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing therespondents to release all the retirement benefits payable to thepetitioner as per his entitlement as expeditiously as possiblepreferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order. No order as to costs.

7. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.47083 of2013 is dismissed as unnecessary.

________________________

JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

Date: 31.12.2013.TJMR

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead