Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 399 (TS)

T. Abdul Hakeem v. State of Telangana

2025-04-23

T.ABDUL HAKEEM

body2025
ORDER : Heard Sri Thomas George, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development Department, appearing on behalf of respondents. 2. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking the following relief “… to issue a Writ/Direction/ Order more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, by declaring Letter No. AB/A1/268M, dated 15/06/2022 issued by Respondents as arbitrary, illegal and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to pay arrears of salary, pensionary benefits, gratuity, Contributory Provident Fund, Group Provident Fund, arrears of pension and pension to the Petitioner and or to pass ...”. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief, is that the petitioner is a senior citizen, aged about 64 years, and had earlier worked as Fitter, Grade II in NSLC Division, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District for almost 20 years and the services of the petitioner were terminated abruptly, arbitrarily and illegally on 27.11.1997 without issuing any pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 1309 of 1998 in Administrative Tribunal challenging the termination of the petitioner, whereby, the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal dismissed the O.A. No.1309/1998, but gave liberty to file an appeal. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, but appellate authority did not dispose the appeal preferred by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the respondents rejected the relief for pensionary benefits in the month of June, 2022. The petitioner received a Letter Number AB/A1/268 M dated 15.06.2022 informing the petitioner that the petitioner was removed from service without considering the Telugu representation dated 01.06.2022 of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD The impugned proceedings vide Letter No.AB/ A1/ 268, dated 15.06.2022 of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No.2, Miryalguda – 508 207, Nalgonda District addressed to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder: GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA IRRIGATION & CAD DEPARTMENT From To Sri G. Karunakar, B.Tech., Sri Abdul Hakeem, Executive Engineer, Thottoli House, Irrigation Division No.2, Makkara Parmba Post Miryalguda – 508 207 Malappuram Dist-676507 Nalgonda District Kerala State. Letter No. AB/A1/268 M, Dt: 15.06.2022. “Gentleman, Sub:- Representation of Sri T.Abdul Hakeem S/o T.Kutti Hassan, Fitter Gr-11 for sanctioning pensionery benefits - Reg. Ref:- 1. Your representation Dt: Nil received in this office on 01-06-2022. 2.SE NSLC O&M Circle, Miryalaguda Memo. Letter No. AB/A1/268 M, Dt: 15.06.2022. “Gentleman, Sub:- Representation of Sri T.Abdul Hakeem S/o T.Kutti Hassan, Fitter Gr-11 for sanctioning pensionery benefits - Reg. Ref:- 1. Your representation Dt: Nil received in this office on 01-06-2022. 2.SE NSLC O&M Circle, Miryalaguda Memo. No. WCE/ E3/505/95/Vol.III/6089M Dt: 27.11.1997. 3. Your representation addressed to CE, N.S. Project, Hill colony During 12/1998. I am to inform that you have represented this office to sanction medical leave and pensionary benefits for you vide reference 1 st cited. After verification of records in respect of you in this office it is found that you have left job for alternative employment possibly outside the country and unauthorized absence since 20.05.1994 therefore you have been removed from service with effect from 20.05.1994 and not eligible for any terminal benefits vide reference 2 nd cited. Further, it is to inform you that you have approached to Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and filed O.A No.1309/1998 to declare the action of the respondent (Superintending Engineer, NSLC O&M Circle, Miryalaguda) in removing you from service as Fitter Gr.II is bad, arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice by setting aside the Memo. No. WCE/ E3/ 505/ 95/ Vol. VIII/6089M Dt: 27.11.1997 and treat the period from 20.05.1994 to till the reinstatement is as on duty for all purposes. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad has delivered judgment on 21.04.1998 in O.A.No.1309/1998 that the O.A is an appealable order. Appeal lies to Chief Engineer, Irrigation & CAD Department. The applicant without filing the statutory appeal has filed this O.A. The OA is therefore not maintainable. It so advised it is open the applicant to lean appeal against the order Impugned in this OA to the Chief Engineer, irrigation & CAD Department and seek redressal. The OA is accordingly disposed of. No costs. It is to inform you that you have represented to Chief Engineer Nagarjuna Sagar Project, Hill colony during 12/1998 to reinstate and to continue for you in service vide reference 3 rd cited. But, the Chief Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar Project, Hill colony has not issued any orders on your representation for reinstatement and continue in service. Hence, there is no orders for positive for you from Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad to reinstate into service and also there is no orders from Chief Engineer to reinstate you into service. But, the Chief Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar Project, Hill colony has not issued any orders on your representation for reinstatement and continue in service. Hence, there is no orders for positive for you from Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad to reinstate into service and also there is no orders from Chief Engineer to reinstate you into service. Hence, the sanctioning of pensionary benefits to you does not arise as you have not retired from service and you have been removed from service with effect from 20.051994 by Superintending Engineer, NSLC O&M Circle, Miryalaguda vide reference 2 nd cited. Yours faithfully, Sd/-xxx Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No.2, Miryalaguda DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that petitioner’s vide representation dated 01.06.2022 addressed to the 3 rd respondent herein requested to sanction medical leave and pensionary benefits to the petitioner herein. The said representation of the petitioner had been rejected by the 3 rd respondent vide impugned proceedings dated 15.06.2022 on the ground that the representation preferred by the petitioner to the 2 nd respondent during December, 1998 to reinstate the petitioner and continue the petitioner in services had not been considered by the 2 nd respondent as on date and therefore, the request of the petitioner made vide petitioner’s representation dated 01.06.2022 seeking sanction of medical leave and pensionary benefits cannot be granted. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development Department, appearing on behalf of respondents pleads that in view of the fact that the 2 nd respondent had not passed any orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner in December, 1998, the 3 rd respondent could not pass any orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner and therefore, appropriate orders may be passed in the interest of justice” . 7. 7. This Court opines that the fact as borne on record is that the non-consideration of the representation of the petitioner addressed to the 2 nd respondent herein in December, 1998 is the main ground taken by the 3 rd respondent to reject the petitioner’s representation for sanction of pensionary benefits and the respondent No.2 is bound to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth vide petitioner’s representation addressed to the 2 nd respondent in December, 1998, and the 3 rd respondent, thereafter according to the said decision of the 2 nd respondent is bound to reconsider petitioner’s representation, dated 01.06.2022 addressed to the 3 rd respondent in accordance to law w ithin a reasonable period. 8. Taking into consideration : (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government for Irrigation & Command Area Development Department, appearing on behalf of respondents. (c) The contents of the impugned proceedings vide Letter No.AB/ A1/ 268, dated 15.06.2022 of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No.2, Miryalguda – 508 207, Nalgonda District addressed to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above), The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner to the 2 nd respondent in December, 1998, in accordance to law pertaining to petitioner’s reinstatement into service within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 is also directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.06.2022 for sanction of medical leave and pensionary benefits addressed to the 3 rd respondent herein, within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter, after the decision of the 2 nd respondent is rendered on the representation furnished by the petitioner in December, 1998 to the 2 nd respondent in accordance to law without reference to the impugned letter No.AB/A1/268M, dated 15.06.2022 of the 3 rd respondent addressed to the petitioner herein. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.