IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27084 of 2007 Between: L. Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Kurmanadha Swamy, O/o. General Manager Telecom District, Visakhapatnam, R/o. Flat No. 103, Ground Floor, Opp: Shadikhana, Abidnagar, Akkaiahpalem, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Department of Telecommunications, Rep. by its Secretary & Chairman, New Delhi - 1. 2 The Controller of Communications, 3rd Floor, Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad -1. 3 The Chief General Manager, B.S.N.L. A.P. Telecom, Hyderabad - 500 037. 4 The General manager Telecom District, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue Writ order or direction more particualrly onein the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1-3 in not ﬁxing the pension and retiral beneﬁts of the Petitioner in terms of last 10 months pay in IDA Scales and as per the pension calculation sent by the 4th respondent on 8-6-2006 and 24-10-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to article 14 of the Constitution of India and Rules and Consequenlty direct the respondents 1-3 to revise the pension and retrial beneﬁts as per the pension calculation sent by the 4th respondents on 24-10-2007 and pay the balance of pension and other retrial beneﬁts together with 12% interest thereon to the petitioner immediately in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.DEVANAND The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27084 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner retired from B.S.N.L. as Sub- Divisional Engineer on 31.08.2006. Before the formation of B.S.N.L., he was the employee of Department of Telecommunications, 1st respondent herein. He states that on an option being given to him, he has chosen to be covered by IDA scales, instead of CDA scales. He was sanctioned pension at the rate of Rs.6,958/- per month and after deduction of commutation, his pension was ﬁxed at Rs.4,175/- per month. Corresponding amounts towards gratuity and commutation pension were also extended. The petitioner states that his pay scale was raised to Rs.15,175/-by the time of his retirement, and the pension was not calculated on the basis of that pay. Furnishing the comparative ﬁgures, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 13.03.2007, to the respondents. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner insists that he ought to have been sanctioned the pension at the rate of Rs.7,543/- per month, whereas the respondents sanctioned only Rs.6,958/- per month. The comparative pictures disclose that the petitioner claims the diﬀerence of pension at the rate of Rs.351/- per month, gratuity of Rs.80,000/- and commutation pension of Rs.27,546/-. He further contends that the facts and ﬁgures furnished by him have, in fact, been agreed to by the authorities of the B.S.N.L. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that on receiving representation from the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 have referred the matter to the concerned authority in the Central Government way back in January 2008 and as soon as the clariﬁcation is received, necessary action would be taken. The competent authority, for sanctioning the pension and releasing the retirement beneﬁts of the petitioner, has to take into account, the representation submitted by him. Though the authority may have felt the necessity of seeking clariﬁcation, the representation made by a retired employee cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondents 2 and 3 to take immediate steps to seek clariﬁcation of the concerned authority within a period of six weeks form today and to pass consequential orders. In case, the necessary clarification is not received by that time, they shall pass orders according to their own understanding of that matter, within four weeks after expiry of six weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 27.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27084 of 2007 Date: 27.08.2008 JSU