Telangana High Court
G.S.Prasada Rao, Hyd vs The V.C. And Managing Director, Hyd on 21 March, 2025
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
WRIT PETITION No.10047 of 2010
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner requesting the Court to declare the action of the respondent in passing the impugned Order dated 30.01.2010, rejecting the claim of the petitioner to grant interest @ 18% per annum on the terminal/retirement benefits of Gratuity and leave encashment of Rs.4,35,388.30/- for the period from 01.04.2004 to 10.09.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is present and learned Counsel for the respondent is absent.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner joined in the respondent Corporation as Senior Seed Officer during the year 1978 and he was promoted as Regional Manager/Manager during the year 1982. He was issued with a Charge Memo vide Memo No.SSDC/Admn/2001-02, dated 09.09.2001 by the respondent Corporation for certain alleged irregularities pertaining to the year 1997. Petitioner had submitted his explanation on 07.11.2001 and Departmental 2 enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry report on 17.05.2005, holding that the charges held not proved. Similarly, another Charge Memo No.SSDC/Admn/2002- 03, dated 28.12.2002, was issued by the respondent against the petitioner for the irregularities took place in supply of Sunflower seed on 50% subsidy during the year 1997-98. Petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation on 17.01.2003 and a Departmental Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer had also submitted report on 27.10.2005 by holding that alleged charges were not proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary authority issued a Memo No.SSDC/Admn/2006/07, dated 08.01.2007 i.e., after two years, by disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and directed the petitioner to submit representation, as such petitioner submitted a representation on 25.01.2007.
4. During the pendency of the above alleged charges, petitioner attained the age of superannuation and he was relieved from service on 31.03.2004, but even after the retirement, pensionary benefits i.e., Gratuity and leave encashment were not released by the respondent Corporation, as such petitioner made several representations. Finally, vide proceedings No.SSDC/A/16/2008-09, dated 08.09.2008, 3 respondent Corporation dropped the charges against the petitioner and released the Gratuity and leave encashment benefits to the tune of Rs.4,35,388.30/-, but without interest. Therefore, petitioner made a representation to the respondent Corporation on 16.02.2009 and also on 11.01.2010, requesting to grant interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of Rs.4,35,388.30/-. On that, respondent Corporation has passed the impugned Order dated 30.01.2010 vide No.SSDC/Admn./2009-10/299, and stated that as per G.O.Rt.No.1034, Fin.&Plg.(FW Pen.I) Department, dated 09.06.2000, any individual is eligible for interest from the date of final orders only. In your case, the final orders were issued on 08.09.2008 and terminal benefits were paid on 11.09.2008. Hence, you are not eligible for any interest on the terminal benefits. Aggrieved by the said impugned Order, the present writ petition is preferred.
5. In the counter filed by the General Manager (Admn.), APSSDC Ltd, Hyderabad, he stated that irregularities were reported during the physical verification of records in distribution of Sunflower seeds under subsidy in the Warangal District during the year 1997-98. Disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and seven other employees of 4 APSSDC Ltd., by issuing Charge Memos on 28.12.2002 and Enquiry Officer was appointed on 23.03.2003. In the meanwhile, petitioner was retired on 31.03.2004. The petitioner was paid EPF amount of Rs.6,02,041/-, but payment of gratuity and leave encashment benefits were with held as enquiry was not completed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.10.2005, stating that charges made against the petitioner were not proved. Considering the explanation of the petitioner dated 25.01.2007, the charges were dropped against him and other benefits could not be paid as he was not the only person and there were seven other employees facing disciplinary action. After passing the orders on 08.09.2008, he was paid the terminal benefits of gratuity and leave encashment to the tune of Rs.4,38,388/- on 11.09.2008, as such there was no delay on the part of the Corporation in payment of terminal benefits and requested the Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court dated 21.08.2024 in W.P.No.1960 of 2018, in which it was held as follows:
"8. The learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4845 of 2019, held as follows:5
"A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh, has passed a common order dated 15.11.2018, in W.P.Nos.25587, 26311 and 26381 of 2018, by relying on the Judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Shri Krishna Pandey, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with initiation of a departmental enquiry against the respondent therein after his retirement from service, observed that as in Rule 9 (2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1980, Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, which was under consideration, provided that departmental proceedings, if not instituted before retirement, shall not be instituted in respect of an even which took place more than four years before such institution, as in Rule 9 (6) of the Rules of 1980, the Explanation to Regulation 351-A provided that departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner were issued to him or from the date of his being placed under suspension, if applicable. Ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct had taken place."
9. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. In view of the above facts, impugned Charge Memo dated 24.07.2018, is liable to be quashed.
10. Writ petition is allowed, quashing the impugned Charge Memo dated 24.07.2018 issued. The respondents are directed to fix 25% pension payable to the petitioner and pay the same and gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date they become due till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs." 6
7. The writ petitioner herein mainly requested for interest on the gratuity amount and leave encashment amount paid to him with delay. Whereas, respondent contended that in view of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings on seven other employees, they could not finalize the enquiry, as such there is delay in payment. The reasons stated by the respondent Corporation are neither convincing nor satisfactory and moreover the enquiry was initiated and charges were framed in the years 2001 and 2002, but the enquiry was finalized and orders to release retirement benefits was passed in the year 2008 and the petitioner cannot be penalized for the finalization of the enquiry. In fact, petitioner was retired during the pendency of the enquiry, as such the contention of the respondent Corporation cannot be accepted and they are directed to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.4,35,388.30/- from 01.04.2004 to 10.09.2008 within one month from the date of this Order i.e., on or before 21.04.2025, failing which they are liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 7.5% per annum from 21.04.2025 to till the date of realization.
8. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed directing the respondent to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the 7 amount of Rs.4,35,388.30/- from 01.04.2004 to 10.09.2008 within one month from the date of this Order i.e., on or before 21.04.2025, failing which they are liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 7.5% per annum from 21.04.2025 to till the date of realization.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 21.03.2025 tri 8 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No.10047 of 2010 DATE: 21.03.2025 TRI