Telangana High Court
Smt. J.Sulochana vs Jadav Dattatraey, on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Hima Kohli, B.Vijaysen Reddy
Item No.41
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2021 in/& WRIT APPEAL No.55 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. I.A.No.1 of 2021 has been moved by the appellant praying
inter alia for grant of leave to file the accompanying appeal directed
against the order dated 24.12.2020, passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.18119 of 2020, filed by the respondent No.1/writ
petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner enters
appearance and opposes the present application. He submits that a
divorce had taken place between the parties in the year 2004.
Thereafter, the appellant had approached the respondent No.5/District
Educational Officer with a request to release 50% of the salary of the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner in her favour, which was allowed vide
order dated 17.05.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent
No.1/writ petitioner had filed OA.No.7366 of 2007 before the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which came to be dismissed. The
said dismissal order was challenged by the respondent No.1/writ
petitioner by filing W.P.No.10762 of 2010, which is pending
adjudication and in the said proceedings, an interim stay order was
granted by the Division Bench on 16.06.2010 whereafter, the
authorities had stopped deducting 50% of the salary of the respondent
No.1/writ petitioner.
3. It is an admitted position that the respondent No.1/writ
petitioner had superannuated on 30.06.2020 and he filed
W.P.No.18119 of 2020 with a grievance that the respondent
authorities were not processing his pension payment proposal and
release the retiral benefits in his favour. Pertinently, the respondent
No.1/writ petitioner did not implead the appellant herein (his first
wife) as a co-respondent in the said petition. The learned Single
Judge has passed the impugned order directing the respondents No.3
to 6 to submit the pension proposal of the respondent No.1/writ
petitioner to the respondent No.2 in the said petition within a fixed
time, with further directions to sanction the pension and pensionary
benefits to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.
4. We are of the opinion that instead of entertaining the present
application for leave to file the accompanying appeal, interest of
justice would be served if the appellant is granted leave to appear
before the respondent No.4/Project Officer of I.T.D.A and submit a
representation for laying a claim on a part of the pensionary benefits
of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.
5. At this stage, learned Government Pleader for Services
appearing for the respondent No.4 states that the pension papers of the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner have already been processed.
6. As we are informed that the retiral benefits have not been
released in favour of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner so far, it is
directed that the same shall not be released till the appellant's
representation is considered and decided by the respondent No.4.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to submit a
representation to the respondent No.4 within one week from today.
The same shall be considered after eliciting a response from the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner. The decision taken shall be intimated
to the appellant and the respondent No.1/writ petitioner within four
weeks thereafter. The aggrieved party shall be entitled to seek
appropriate legal recourse. It is made clear that the release of pension
shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by the respondent
No.4 in this regard.
8. In view of the orders passed above, I.A.No.1 of 2021 is
dismissed. Consequently, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2021 and the writ appeal
stand rejected.
_________________
HIMA KOHLI, CJ
______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
25.03.2021
lur
