0

Telangana High Court: Setting Cut-Off Date for Receiving Enhanced retirement pension Benefits is Illegal & unconstitutional

TITLE – T. Hemanth Kumar Yadav and others vs Telangana State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd and others.

Decided On  – 11.09.2023

24441 of 2020

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Surepalli Nadia

INTRODUCTION-

This writ petition is brought forward to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more specifically one in the nature of a writ of mandamus to declare Clause 2 of item 49 of the resolution passed in the 49th meeting of the Board of management of the first respondent Bank held on September 15, 2020, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, in addition to the fact that the same is against the established law of the land

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioners, who initially worked for Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd. before becoming employees of the first respondent on April 1, 2015, retired from service on various dates beginning in the year 2015 in a variety of positions at the respondent bank.

Since all of the petitioners in this case retired after reaching the retirement age and were fully eligible, they received pensions according to the schedule based on their post or designation. However, the first respondent Bank arbitrarily exercised its power by extending the benefits to the cadre of employees on the rolls as of 04.11.2011 while simultaneously negating them by setting a date to say that employees who are on the rolls as of 01.04.2020 are covered under the existing pension scheme. As a result, the petitioners who retired before April 1, 2020, are denied the benefit of Additional pension benefit, which is against Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Hence this petition lies 

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The Petitioners were unfairly denied the enhanced/additional benefits of the aforementioned pension scheme because they had already retired before the aforementioned date, i.e., 01.04.2020. As beneficiaries of the original scheme, the Petitioners specifically argue that since the Employees Performance Incentive-cumContributory Superannuation Benefit Scheme is a continuation of the original scheme, the Petitioners are entitled to the enhanced benefit under the new scheme. The petitioners allege discrimination and a violation of Article 14, and they came forward to the court and filed the current writ petition because they felt they had been wronged. The averments in the counter affidavit submitted by the respondents, that the resolution’s intent is for this new scheme to only apply to those employees who are on the rolls as of that date and covered by the current TSCAB EPICSBS; a reference to that date was therefore required. In the counter-affidavit, a specific position is taken in addition. The first respondent is further instructed to grant the petitioners the benefit of an additional pension in accordance with item 49 of the resolution adopted at the 49th meeting of the bank’s board of management within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

There will, however, be no cost-related order.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

 

Click here to view judgment

0

WRIT PETITION FILED FOR DELETION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES UNDER REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 AT ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF WITH DIRECTIONS

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Indireddy Venu Gopal Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

WRIT PETITION No. 8983 of 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 13 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s representation for deletion of the subject properties from the prohibited list of Dappepalli Village, Lakkireddypalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District has not been considered by the 2nd respondent (The District Collector).

The main provisions followed in this petition is of Registration act, 1908 added through state amendment.

section 22A. Documents registration of which is opposed to public policy —

(1) The State Government may, by notification, in the official Gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under sub-section (1) is applicable.

FACTS

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner purchased the part of the subject land through a registered sale deed dated 22.02.2016 for an extent of Acres 5.00 cents in Survey No.564 of the said village.

He purchased the other portion of the subject land through a registered sale deed dated 28.10.2009 for an extent of Acres 2.19 cents in Survey No.565 and Acre 1.00 cents in Survey No.566 of the said village and since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

Petitioner approached the respondent authorities for mutation of his name in the revenue records. Then it came to light that the subject land is placed under the prohibited list under the head of dotted land.

Then petitioner made an online application. In pursuance of the same, the 4th respondent submitted a report to the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) dated 11.08.2018 recommending for deletion of the subject property from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The 3rd respondent (The Revenue Divisional Officer) also submitted a report to the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) dated 22.02.2022 to consider the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, there is no progress in the matter.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that, the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) Committee would decide the issue basing upon the earlier reports submitted by the respondent Nos.3 (The Revenue Divisional Officer) and 4 (The Tahsildar) by following the due procedure.

JUDGEMENT

The court held that the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) Committee shall consider and pass appropriate orders in continuation of the reports submitted by the 4th (The Tahsildar) and 3rd (The Revenue Divisional Officer) respondents dated 11.08.2018 and 22.02.2022 as expeditiously as possible strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of this order. Upon hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner and upon verification of the records and the subject land, the appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”