BHARATHI JOHANNA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner initially filed petition in O.A.No.6124 of 2014 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (Tribunal) and upon abolishment of the said Tribunal, the matter is transferred to this Court and re-registered as W.P.(TR)No.2915 of 2017. In the said O.A., the Tribunal granted interim protection to the petitioner by its order dtd. 27/10/2014, which was subsequently extended till 21/11/2014 and 2/12/2014 and finally, on 1/12/2014, the said interim protection was extended until further orders. As the said order was disobeyed by the respondents, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings before the Tribunal and the same is transferred to this Court and re- registered as C.C.(TR).No.244 of 2017 on the abolishment of the Tribunal.

(2.) Sri K. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's parent department is the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Kadapa, i.e., respondent No.9. The petitioner was sent to work on deputation in the Director of MNJ Institute of Oncology and Regional Cancer Centre, Red Hills, Hyderabad, i.e., respondent No.8. The age of the superannuation of the employees working in the petitioner's category in Telangana State was 58 years, whereas it was 60 years in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Since the respondents did not permit the petitioner to continue on deputation, she filed O.A.No.6124 of 2014 before the Tribunal with following relief:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner stood retired and received all her retirement benefits in view of order passed in separate legal proceedings. In the instant case, the relief is only about salary for the period between 27/10/2014 to 31/10/2016. To elaborate, it is submitted that against the action of respondents in not continuing the petitioner, the O.A. was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on 27/10/2014 directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in respondent No.8 institution. In furtherance thereof, the petitioner continued for some time and respondent No.8 paid her salary upto January, 2015. Thereafter, she was not allowed to continue and no salary was paid to her. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner is only claiming salary from January, 2015 to 31/10/2016 in the present proceedings.