Telangana High Court
P. Venkat Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 4 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.1956 OF 2025
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Directions, more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
the 1st Respondent's inaction by set asiding the
representation dt. 12.11.2024 for reinstatement and consider
for regularization of suspension period from 12.04.2004 to
23.03.2007 and dismissal period from 16.08.2010 to
31.12.2024 as 'On Duty' under 53-A (3) on par with similar
and identical case of Sri P.Manohar, Divisional Accounts
Officer (Works) regularized his services vide G.O.Rt.No.1036
Finance (VC) Dept dt.12.06.2024 in compliance to the
Judgment in W.P.No.21480 of 2023 dt.09.08.2023 which is
arbitrary, whimsical and capricious and contrary to the article
14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the 1st
Respondent to allow the regularization of suspension period
from 12.04.2004 to 23.03.2007 and dismissal period from
16.08.2010 to 31.12.2024 as 'On Duty' under 53-A(3) on par
with Sri P.Manohar, Divisional Accounts Officer (W)
regularized his Services vide G.O.Rt.No.1036 Finance (VC)
Dept dt.12.06.2024 in compliance to the Judgment in
W.P.No.21480 of 2023 dt.09.08.2023 and also prayed to
grant interest 18% p.a. on the salary arrears for the period
of suspension and dismissal and HRA from the date of due
from payment until actual date of payment, and 18% interest
on the delayed payment of pension and all retiral benefits
from the date of superannuation until the actual date of
payment as per the judgements of the Honble Apex Court in
the Y.K.Singla's case and as per the Judgement of the
Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in U0I vs Ulfath
RaiArya's case and also Writ Petition No.14825 of 2009
dt.29.07.2022 of this Hon'ble T.S. High Court in case of the
Executive Engineer, RWS Department Vs Smt.Matham
th
Rukmini on 29 July 2022 and another recent Judgment in
W.P.No.25501 of 2019 Dr. Nehru Vs The State of Telangana
on 30th June, 2023 allowed 24% interest p.a. from the date
of retirement of the petitioner till the date of actual payment
and pass such order or orders."
2. Heard Sri P. Manohar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the
respondents. Perused the material on record.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially
appointed as Village Secretary Grade-II in the Panchayat Raj
Department on 06.07.1989 and later promoted as Village
Development Officer Grade-I on 17.07.1997 Forenoon. While
he was working as Panchayat Secretary Grade-I of
Prashanthinagar Gram Panchayat, Siddipet Mandal, erstwhile
Medak District, he was implicated in foisted case of ACB on
12.04.2004 and kept under suspension from 12.04.2004.
Subsequently, he was reinstated into service on 01.04.2004
and posted at Thoguta Gram Panchayat in the existing
vacancy, pending conclusion of disciplinary criminal case in
the Court. While so, consequent upon the judgment passed
by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.54 of 2005, dated 03.06.2010,
convicting him, he was dismissed from service on 16.08.2010
vide proceedings No.249/2004/A5-PAS, dated 13.08.2010, of
the District Panchayat Officer (DPO), Medak District, and
G.O.Ms.No.261 PR & RD (Vlg.III-A) Department, dated
27.07.2010.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that challenging
the judgment passed in C.C.No.54 of 2005, he filed Criminal
Appeal No.738 of 2010 before this Court and the same was
allowed by judgment dated 30.10.2024. Thereupon, he
submitted a representation dated 12.11.2024 to respondent
No.1 requesting for regularization of suspension period from
12.04.2004 to 31.03.2007 and dismissal period from
16.08.2010 to 30.11.2024 under F.R.54-A (3) on par with Sri
P. Manohar, Divisional Accounts Officer (W) Grade-II vide
G.O.Rt.No.1036 Finance (VC) Department dated 11.06.2024.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II
submitted that as per written instructions received from the
DPO, Sanga Reddy District, vide Lr.No.W.P/2025-A1-Pts.,
dated 21.01.2025, the DPO, Siddipet District, has to respond
in this case.
6. In the letter vide Lr.No.W.P/2025-A1-Pts., dated
21.01.2025 addressed by the DPO, Sanga Reddy District, it is
stated that the petitioner was dismissed from service on
16.08.2010 while he was working at Thoguta Gram
Panchayat, Thoguta Mandal of erstwhile Medak District, now
in Siddipet District; that during the re-organization of
Districts, the erstwhile Medak District was bifurcated into
three districts viz., Sanga Reddy, Medak and Siddipet; that
now Thoguta Mandal falls under the jurisdiction of DPO,
Siddipet; that the connected files also transferred to the
concerned Districts and hence, the case is beyond jurisdiction
of DPO, Sangareddy District and thus the DPO, Siddipet
District, has to respond in this case.
7. In view of the aforesaid letter of the DPO, Sanga Reddy
District, this Court, having observed that the DPO, Siddipet
District has to respond in this case, advised the learned
counsel for the petitioner to make the DPO, Siddipet District,
as a party respondent, but the learned counsel refused to do
so and submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if the
respondent authorities consider his representation dated
12.11.2024 in accordance with law.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by learned
counsel for both the parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of
directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the
representation dated 12.11.2024 of the petitioner, in
accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 04.02.2025
VV
