V. Damodar v. The State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.1078 of 2019 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :- " ..... to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd and 3rd respondents in not making payment of pending arrears of monthly remuneration payable to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 19.02.2016 as the petitioner has discharged his duties as Deputy Tahsildar by duly attending to the work of Land Acquisition, ROR and other Revenue subject as assigned to him from 25.11.2016 to 31.03.2018 as outsourcing service as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to release the pending arrears of remuneration payable to the petitioner with bank interest from its due date till the payment is made ....." .

Heard Mr.M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. It has been contended by the petitioner that he is a retired Deputy Tahsildar and the respondents have offered appointment to him to discharge the duties of Land Acquisition vide proceedings dated 07.01.2017 on condition that the respondents would pay salary of Rs.26,250/ - per month in terms of G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 19.02.2016. The petitioner has accepted the said offer of appointment and has joined duty pursuant to his appointment order dated 07.01.2017.

The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of offering appointment to attend the duties of Land Acquisition, the petitioner was offered a salary of Rs.26,250/ - in terms of G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 19.02.2016, but the respondents instead of paying the said salary had paid only Rs.18,000/ - per month, which is contrary to the

proceedings dated 07.01.2017. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted representations to the respondents on 26.09.2018 and 28.12.2018 requesting to pay arrears of salary in terms of G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 19.02.2016. But, so far, the respondents have not passed any orders on the representations submitted by the petitioner nor the respondents have paid arrears of salary to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contended that the case of the petitioner will be considered and appropriate orders would be passed on the representations submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. This Court, having considered the rival submissions, is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations submitted by the petitioner on 26.09.2018 and 28.12.2018 in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date: 04-04-2019 Prv