Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ, Ravi Cheemalapati, J
Thupakula Venkateswar Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of AP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. pension is a welfare measure for retired employees. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. rule 18's 15-year restoration is arbitrary and unjust. (Para 2 , 10) |
| 3. judicial review of policy requires scrutiny of reasonableness. (Para 14 , 20 , 34) |
| 4. 15-year restoration period upholds state interests. (Para 15 , 24 , 28) |
| 5. writ petitions dismissed; no merit found. (Para 37) |
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:
The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are all retired Government Employees who formerly held various positions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. They retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. The present batch of writ petitions has been filed challenging the validity of Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Pensions (Commutation) Rules, 1944.
2. The petitioners contend that Rule 18 which stipulates a 15-year period for the restoration of the commuted portion of pension is arbitrary, unjust and leads to unjust enrichment of the state. The petitioners therefore pray for a writ of Mandamus to declare Rule 18 as illegal and to direct the respondents to restore the full pension after 11 years and 3 months.
3. As is commonly known and understood, employe
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
