SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 9991

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SREE SUDHA, J
G. Srinivas Rao – Appellant
Versus
The Project Director – Respondent
WP/13961/2014



THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No. 13961 of 2014

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent in not paying the petitioner salary, TA and DA from 01.10.2013 (except February 2014) as illegal and to direct the respondent to pay the petitioner’s salary from October 2013 a total sum of Rs.77,085/- and continue to pay in future.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. No representation for respondent. Perused the record.

3. Petitioner was appointed as Community Coordinator for Elimination of Rural Poverty on fixed tenure employment w.e.f 01.01.2008. He will be on long term fixed tenure employment contract, renewable at a stretch for a period of 5 years. The maximum period of contract is till he attains the age of 58 years at Adilabad-TPMU. The place of work will be decided by the Organization requirements. The gross remuneration is Rs.6100/- per month and entitled for TA and DA for project related travels as per rates admissible. He was posted to Nirmal with a direction to report to Project Director, DRDA-IKP, Adilabad vide proceedings dated 25.11.2009. A show cause notice dated 27.11.2013 was issued to him as he failed to provide nutritious food to pregnant and lactating mothers, poorest of the poor women of the cluster and HNCIF fund is not properly utilized in the HN centre and it amounts to negligence and lack of commitment in discharging the legitimate duties properly on his part. Though he gave an explanation and the same was received by the respondent and there was an endorsement by Assistant Project Manager, DRDA-IKP, Mamada. No orders were passed by the respondent and his salary was not paid for five months. Petitioner also gave another representation for non-payment of his salary for five months. In the explanation, he stated that two employees were not working due to the technical problem, as such he could not submit the report on time, but he paid CIF fund to them directly.

4. As the department failed to initiate any action against the petitioner, even after receiving the explanation, they are not supposed to stop his salary, as such writ petitioner is entitled for five months for the period October 2013 to March 2014 (except February 2014). Respondents are directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which they are directed to pay the said amount along with interest @ 7.5% till the date of payment.

5. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J Date: 08.04.2025 CHS

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top