Telangana High Court
WP/33488/2011 of N.R.Thirtha Vs APSRTC rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan on 29 December 2011
COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 33488 OF 2011 Between: N. R. Thirtha … Petitioner V/s. APSRTC Represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION NO.33488 OF 2011
Between:N. R. Thirtha … Petitioner V/s.
APSRTC Represented by itsManaging Director,Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V. Narsimha Goud Counsel for the Respondents : Sri C.Sunilkumar REddy SC for A.P.S.R.T.C. R1 toR3 Sri R.N.Reddy for R-4
The Court made the following : (Order follows next page)
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.
O R D E R:
WRIT PETITION NO.33488OF 2011
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standingcounsel representing APSRTC and the learned standing counsel forRespondent No.4.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus todeclare the action of the respondents in not arranging the petitioner’spension payable from 13-07-2006 on his retirement from service on 12-7-2006 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of theConstitution of India as well as contrary to the purport of the EmployeesPension Scheme and consequently to direct the respondents to pay thepension payable to him from 13-7-2006 along with interest @ 12% p.a. fromthe due date and to pass such other suitable orders as this court maydeem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the service of therespondent-corporation as driver in the year 1985, his services wereregularized w.e.f. 01-7-1988 and he was removed from service by thesecond respondent through order dated 13-3-1997 on the ground of absenteeism. Aggrieved by the same, he raised ID.No. 105 of 2003 beforethe Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. By award dated 27-12-2005 the LabourCourt-II directed the first respondent to reinstate him into service withoutback wages and treated out of service period as not on duty. The saidaward was published on 24-4-2006. Pursuant to the said award, hereported to duty on 24-4-2006 and after reinstating him into service, he wasmade to retire from service on 12-7-2006 on the ground of unfit for the postof driver. It is stated that aggrieved by the award passed in ID.No. 105 of2003 with regard to not granting back wages and other consequentialbenefits, he filed WP.No. 1323 of 2007 before this Court and this courtdismissed the said writ petition on 02-02-2007. Aggrieved thereby, hepreferred WA.No. 320 of 2007 before this court and this court partly allowedthe said writ appeal modifying the award passed in ID.No.105 of 2003 anddirected the first respondent therein to treat his out of service period as on duty.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of theorder passed in WA.No. 320 of 2007, the first respondent treated the out ofservice period as on duty and arranged all service retirement benefits dulyadding notional increments from the out of service period. The petitionerwas treated to be in service from the date of his appointment till he retiredfrom service on 12-7-2006 and he was paid Rs.1,07,536-00 towardsdifference of service retirement benefits through cheque No. 632146, dated26-7-2008. But the pension payable to him from the next day of retirement,
i.e., 13-7-2006 is not being arranged inspite of his repeated requests madeto the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitsthat the petitioner is a member of pension scheme introduced by the fourthrespondent. Right from the date of his appointment, his contributions to theemployees pension scheme was also recovered every month from hissalary and remitted to the said scheme. He also submitted pension papersi.e., Form 10-D on 23-9-2006 but till date his pension is not arranged.Though a legal notice was also issued on 10-10-2011 to the respondentsinforming them to arrange the pension but till date neither they gave anyreply nor his pension is being arranged. Due to non-payment of pension,the petitioner is facing much hardship, as he has no source of income.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this writ petition isdisposed of directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the case of thepetitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law positivelywithin a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this orderand arrange for payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 13-7-2006 till date.
6. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Nocosts.
---------------------------------------- JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
29-12-2011I s L
WRIT PETITION NO. 33488 OF 2011
CIRCULATION NO. 32Date:29-12-2011Court Master: I s LComputer No. 43