Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 658 (AP)

Syed Adam v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-10-14

M.VENKATA RAMANA

body2020
JUDGMENT M.Venkata Ramana, J. - Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 2. The request of the petitioner is to direct the respondent-Authorities to consider his representation dated 17.02.2017 to grant pension in terms of order in O.A.No.476 of 2014 dated 04.11.2016 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 3. The petitioner is 75 years old and he is a pensioner. It appears that he and one Sri G.Srinivasa Rao were convicted in C.C.No.1 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for S.P.E & A.C.B.Cases, Vijayawada, by the judgment dated 21.08.2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 343 and 201 I.P.C and that they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. It appears that in Criminal Appeal preferred by the petitioner, the sentence imposed against him was suspended. On account of this instance, it is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent-Authorities have withheld entire pension and gratuity. The petitioner also referred to O.A. filed by Sri G.Srinivasa Rao, who was convicted along with him in the same criminal case. It appears that in that O.A. certain directions were issued benefiting Sri G.Srinivasa Rao. 4. Now, the request of the petitioner is that the respondents should apply the same principle and leverage in his favour and for this purpose, he has presented a representation on 17.02.2017. It appears that the Authorities did not respond to his representation and according to the petitioner on account of this situation, he is constrained to approach this Court by way of writ petition. 5. Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner referring to these facts, now requests to direct the respondents to consider the above representation of the petitioner. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I fairly agreed to this course. 7. In view of the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.02.2017, strictly in accordance with law and existing rules without making any deviation, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In view of the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.02.2017, strictly in accordance with law and existing rules without making any deviation, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. By way of abundant caution, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to the respondents for the same purpose and learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to forward the same along with a copy of this order to the respondents for their consideration as stated above. . No costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.