IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.39346 OF 2025 Dated 07th January, 2026 Between:

K.Satish Chander.

…Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others.

…Respondents

O R D E R :

With the consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction and release all pensionary benefits, including Gratuity, Encashment of Earned Leave, Commutation, arrears of increments, and treat the suspension period from 02.07.1997 to 30.04.2002 as on duty under Fundamental Rules 54(B), with interest as the action of the respondents in withholding the full pensionary benefits-including Gratuity, Encashment of Earned Leave, Commutation, arrears of increments-and in not treating the period of suspension from 02.07.1997 to 30.04.2002 as on duty under the Fundamental Rules, as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional; despite the petitioner’s acquittal in Criminal Case C.C.No.15 of 1999 by the Court of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, dated 28.10.2003, and the dismissal of the appeal by this Hon’ble Court on 06.12.2004 in Criminal Appeal (SR) No.2548 of 2004, the impugned actions violate Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and are contrary to the settled law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court and to pass…”

3. Heard Sri Mahesh Mamindla, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent No.1; Sri G.Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, appearing for respondent No.2; and Sri M.Murali Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for Accountant General, appearing for respondent No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service as Superintendent on 30.11.2009 after rendering 30 years and 9 months of service in respondent No.2–Office. During the course of his service, a criminal case was registered against him by the ACB authorities in the year 1997. Upon filing of the charge sheet, the said case was taken on file as C.C. No.15 of 1999 by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Hyderabad. The learned trial Judge, vide judgment dated

28.10.2003, acquitted the petitioner from all the charges. Aggrieved thereby, the ACB authorities preferred an appeal before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal (SR) No.2548 of 2004, which was dismissed by judgment dated 06.12.2004. It is further submits that though the petitioner was acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case, the respondents are not releasing retiral benefits to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.09.2025 to respondent No.2 requesting release of all retiral benefits. However, no action has been taken by respondent No.2 so far. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to direct respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 20.09.2025 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a time-frame to be stipulated by this Court.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 fairly submits that respondent No.2 will consider the petitioner’s representation dated 20.09.2025 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider representation dated 20.09.2025 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possi