Telangana High Court
Y. Raja Rajeshwari, Hyderabad. vs The Liquidator, A.P. State Non Resident ... on 19 October, 2022
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
W.P.No.11301 of 2006
ORDER:
1. This writ petition was filed seeking writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the VRS benefits of the husband of the petitioner, to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to release the VRS benefits of the husband of the petitioner, to the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased husband of the writ petitioner was an employee of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Non Resident Indian Investment Corporation Limited (herein after called ANRICH) and after having served the said corporation the deceased husband of the writ petitioner had been relieved from service with effect from 31.03.2000, and he had requested the corporation through an undertaking that the outstanding dues pending against him may be deducted from his terminal benefits as per the eligibility. On consideration of the request of Sri Y.Balaramudu, the Chairman and 2 Managing Director is pleased to relieve him by waiving the notice period w.e.f.07.04.2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the proceedings issued by the respondent-Corporation vide proceedings No.ANRICH/ESTT/23/81-82, dated 12.04.2000 and prays this Court to issue direction against the respondents not to release the benefits of the petitioner as stated in the proceedings of the Chairman and Managing Director which reads as under:
"If VRS is given to other employees, the same scheme will be applied to him, if no VRS scheme is offered to any employee, his application will be treated as resignation and same terms applicable to any other employee would be applicable to him."
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submits that the question of application of VRS does not arise to the deceased husband of the writ petitioner and he does not fit within the application of VRS scheme at all and vehemently opposes the writ petition on the ground of non-maintainability and prays to dismiss the writ petition on merits.
3
5. During the course of arguments, it was agreed between the parties that on an application being made by the petitioner afresh, the respondents shall consider the representation of the writ petitioner sympathetically on verification of records pertaining to the deceased husband and dispose of such representation within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law.
6. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall also stand dismissed.
____________________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Dated:19.10.2022 Vsl 4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL W.P.No.11301 of 2006 Dated: 19.10.2022 VSL