Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Gangaraju vs The Secretary on 24 February, 2021
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.4554 of 2021
ORDER:-
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in
not taking into consideration of the temporary service rendered by the
petitioner from 05.08.2001 to 22.06.2009 for the purpose of
determination of pension and retirement benefits as per Rule 13 of A.P.
Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and as per the Full Bench Judgment of
the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad reported in 2015(6) ALD 131 (FB)
as wholly, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of
the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is
entitled for counting the service rendered by him from 05.08.2001 to
22.06.2009 for the purpose of determination of pension and retirement
benefits."
2. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the
respondents, during hearing, Sri A.Surya Rao, learned counsel
for the petitioner requested this Court, without touching the
merits of the case to issue a direction to the respondents to
dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated
06.01.2021, fix the pension in terms of Rule 13 of A.P. Revised
Pension Rules, 1980 by following the Full Bench judgment of
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in R.Rama Rao v. The
Railway Board1.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Services-III readily agreed
to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated
06.01.2021, if any, pending with the authorities.
2015(6) ALD 131 (FB)
4. In view of the submission of the learned Government
Pleader for Services-III, I need not decide the truth or otherwise
of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious
that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the
Apex Court in The Government of India v. P. Venkatesh2,
wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a
quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory
institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice.
As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to
issue a direction to dispose of the representation, dated
06.01.2021, I find no other alternative except to issue such
direction.
5. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the
respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner
dated 06.01.2021 fixing the pension strictly adhering to Rule 13
of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and the law laid down by
the Full Bench of the High court of Judicature at Hyderabad in
R.Rama Rao's case (referred (1) supra), within four (04) weeks
from today. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
__________________________________________
JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 24.02.2021
IS
2019 (8) SCALE 544
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Writ petition No.4554 of 2021
Date: 24.02.2021
IS
