V.Sampath Kumar S/O. V. Ramanujaga Chary, v. State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its Secretary To Government,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL WRIT APPEAL No.742 of 2017 Date:22.8.2017 Between:

V.Sampath Kumar, S/o V.Ramanujaga Chary ..... Appellant And:

The State of Telangana, reptd by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and another.

.....Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Mr. T.Vijay Hanuman Singh Counsel for the respondents: GP for Services-I (TS) The Court made the following:

CVNR, J & MSKJ, J WA.No.742 of 2017 Dated:22.8.2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) Feeling aggrieved by refusal to grant an interim order, pending Writ Petition No.6945 of 2017, by the learned single Judge, the writ petitioner filed this Writ Appeal. The appellant filed the afore-mentioned Writ Petition assailing the validity of Government Memo No.36334/Vig.I(1)/ 2009, Revenue (Vigilance-I) Department, dated 21.8.2015, and the letter, dated 01.7.2016, of respondent No.2, pertaining to payment of interest on the delayed payment of commuted pension. The learned single Judge declined to grant interim relief claimed by the appellant, i.e., a direction to respondent No.2 to consider sanction of interest on the commuted value of pension, on the ground that as respondent No.2 has already taken the view against payment of interest on the commuted value of pension, no purpose would be served in issuing such a direction pending the said Writ Petition.

Mr. T.Vijay Hanuman Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, pointed out that respondent No.2 has not directly rejected the appellant's request, but has communicated his view through letter addressed to the Government Pleader. In our opinion, it hardly makes any difference whether the order was passed on the appellant's representation or the view of respondent No.2 was communicated in the context of the

CVNR, J & MSKJ, J WA.No.742 of 2017 Dated:22.8.2017 Contempt Case filed by the appellant. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this Writ Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, WAMP.No.1454 of 2017 is dismissed as infructuous. ____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY ____________________ JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL 22nd August 2017 DR