Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
V. Srinivasa Rao S/o Manahor Rao – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Telangana, Rep. by its Registrar (Admn) – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Since the issue raised in both these writ petitions is connected with each other and the petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same, these two writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.
2. W.P.No.38800 of 2012 is filed to declare the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the petitioner’s request for regularization of suspension period as ‘on duty’ vide Order in Roc No.1105/2011, C.4(Con), dated 25.10.2012 as being arbitrary, irregular discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 01.11.2006 to 01.11.2011 as ‘on duty’ for all purposes including increments, pay fixation etc., on the analogy of the orders passed in respect of similarly placed employees vide order Dis.No.7233/PR No.71/06/ADM/DCK, dated 07.09.2011, by respondent No.2.
3. W.P.No.15640 of 2024 is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the retirement Gratuity and full pension to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of C.C.No.53 of 2007 on the file of learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases at Karimnagar, even though discipl
Withholding of pension and gratuity due to pending criminal proceedings is unconstitutional when departmental charges are dropped and no substantial justification is provided.
Point of Law : Article 351-AA/919-A came to be incorporated later (1980), the rule making authority was fully aware of the existing provisions, in particular, Article 351/351-A, but the rule making a....
Gratuity payment can be withheld during the pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings as per Rule 64(1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
In the absence of specific provisions empowering the employer to withhold the pension of an employee, the same cannot be withheld, especially after the employee has been acquitted from criminal charg....
Withholding retiral benefits based solely on the pendency of an FIR is unjustified without a charge-sheet being filed.
Retiral benefits cannot be withheld based solely on the registration of FIRs without a challan being presented at the time of retirement.
An employee acquitted in a criminal case is entitled to salary for the suspension period if no departmental proceedings are initiated, emphasizing the duty of the employer to reconsider suspension cl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
