T Madhu Sudhana vs The State Of Ap
2022 Latest Caselaw 1934 AP

             HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                   MAIN CASE: W.P. No. 14766 of 2021


                             PROCEEDING SHEET

SL.     DATE                               ORDER                           OFFICE
NO.                                                                         NOTE

13.   21.04.2022   RNT, J

                           Sri Y. V. Srinivasn, learned standing
                   counsel for 2nd respondent/APHB prays for

adjournment stating that the learned Advocate General will appear to argue this matter for APHB.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, opposes the prayer contending urgency, and submits that the petitioners retired during the years 2018 to 2020, but till date their entire GPF amounts have not been released by the 2nd respondent-AP Housing Board; only the amount which was deducted after 02.06.2014 has been paid. The petitioners are senior citizens and are suffering a lot.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the responsibility for release of the entire amount is on the 2nd respondent/APHB to the petitioners, and for non-finalization of the apportionment proceedings, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. He has also referred to the judgment in the case of R. Sumathi and ors. Vs. Telangana State Housing Board {in W.P.Nos.41913 of 2018 and connected matters, decided on 20.02.2020} paragraph-119, to contend that as the petitioners have retired after 02.06.2014, the entire responsibility for payment of amounts due towards GPF is on the successor APHB/2nd respondent only and the responsibility for payment of amounts towards GPF to all the retired employees of APHB, who retired prior to

SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE 02.06.2014, is exclusively on TSHB.

4. Sri Y. V. Srinivasan, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-AP Housing Board, submits that the amounts of the petitioners towards GPF, as deducted by the 2nd respondent after 02.06.2014, has been paid but the rest amount which was deducted prior to 03.06.2014, could not be paid, as that amount pertains to the period prior to reorganization of the State of A.P and has yet not transferred to the 2nd respondent/APHB from Telangana State Housing Board nor the apportionment of the assets and liabilities between the 2nd respondent/APHB and TSHB has been completed.

5. In view of the request made by the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent, but considering the urgency, put up tomorrow, i.e., on 22.04.2022, to enable the learned Advocate General to appear and argue, as requested.

_________ RNT, J Dsr