Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2017 DAILYLAW 950 (AP)

P.S.A. Shariff v. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

WP/39120/2017 · 2026-05-04

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2017

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010890902017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [2697] SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 39120/2017 Between: 1. P.S.A. SHARIFF, S/O. LATE P.S. SULAIMAN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED SENIOR MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED, R/O. 41- 20/4-5A, REHMON STREET, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA - 520013. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REP. BY ITS CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14-BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110066. 2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EPFO COMPLEX, PLOT NO.23, SECTOR-23, DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110075. 3. TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD TCIL, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, TCIL BHAVAN, GREATER KAILASH-I, NEW DELHI - 110048. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ more specifically in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the actions of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner in seeking pension under Employee's Pension Scheme 1995 vide his final representation dt.04.05.2016 as arbitrary, unjust, illegal and in violation of articles 14, 16, 21 & 311 of Constitution of India and direct the respondents to grant the pension to the petitioner under Employee's Pension 2 Scheme 1995 w.e.f., 01.06.2005 with arrears and interest @ 18% per annum and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PUPPALA SNEHA LATHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The court made the following ORDER:- When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to work-out other remedies available in law. 2. Permission is accorded and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 20.12.2025 GVK 3 33 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.39120 of 2017 Date: 20.12.2025 GVK