Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Seva Sudarsana Rao, vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 17 August, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
W.P.No.2826 of 2021
ORDER:-
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the following relief:-
"... to pass Order or direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent nos.1 to 6 in
not releasing my full pensionary benefits and terminal benefits payable
to me without any just cause, on account of my retirement on
31.11.2011 on attaining my age of superannuation is arbitrary, illegal,
capricious, violative of Article 14, 21, 22 and mandate of A.P. Revised
Pension Rules, 1980 and also violative of the Judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in "Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & another on 22nd
March, 1999", "State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastsava,
2013" and "D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India, 1982" and thereby direct the
respondent nos.1 to 6 to release my Full Pensionary Benefits of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) per month and terminal
benefits of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) with interest @
24% per annum from the date of retirement i.e., 31.11.2011, till the date
of payment, in the interest of justice".
2. Heard both sides.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he worked as LFL
Headmaster of M.P. Elementary School in Kanakapuram,
Jeelugumilli Mandal, for a period of 221/2 years with unblemished
record. He retired from service on 31.12.2011. As per procedure
the pensionary benefits of the petitioner have to be released by
making necessary correspondence with respondent nos.1 to 4
immediately after his retirement. But the District Educational
Officer-5th respondent and the Mandal Educational Officer-6th
respondent failed to do so, inspite of several representations. As
such the petitioner was constrained to file the present Writ
Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the pensionary
benefits of the petitioner were stalled due to the complaint given
by one person by name Smt Varaga Jayamma, who claimed to be
the wife of the petitioner and the complaint was numbered as
C.C.No.226 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Sathupalli, Telangana for the offence under Section
498-A Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C."). It is the further case
of the petitioner that, he filed O.A.No.2615 of 2008 on the file of
the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad
against respondent nos.5 and 6 herein to treat the whole period of
suspension as duty period. The same was allowed and the
Tribunal has directed the respondents therein to treat the
suspension period from 25.03.2008 till the date of reinstatement
as on duty with consequential benefits, as per rules. It is also the
case of the petitioner that he has filed O.A.No.4057 of 2008 on the
file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad
against the respondent nos.5 and 6 herein for awarding
punishment i.e., postponement of one increment without
cumulative effect and order for release of arrears of salary for the
period of suspension. The Tribunal vide Order dated 09.08.2010
in O.A.No.4057 of 2008 has directed the respondents to pass
appropriate orders regarding the regularization of the suspension
period from 24.08.2006 to 26.04.2007 and extend the
consequential benefits within a period of four (4) weeks therefrom.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on
the conviction and judgment against the petitioner in C.C.No.226
of 2008, he preferred the Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2018 before
the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sathupalli, Telangana
and the petitioner was acquitted. Despite the several
representations made, the respondents paid a deaf ear and failed
to pay the pensionary and terminal benefits of the petitioner and
sought a direction to the respondents to release the pensionary
benefits and terminal benefits with interest @ 24% from the date
of retirement till the date of payment. He further relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of
India1". Therefore, the petitioner prayed to direct the respondents
to release the pensionary benefits to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per
month and terminal benefits of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest @
24% per annum.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that
the demand for pension is not a gratituous payment depending
upon the sweet will or grace of the employer, claimable as a right,
therefore, right to pension can be enforced through Court. It is a
right which is in the nature of property which accrues to an
employee. He further stated that there are no disciplinary or
judicial proceedings pending against him under Rule 9 of Andhra
Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, "Pension Rules").
Hence, withholding pension is arbitrary and illegal and therefore,
he prayed to award interest @ 24% per annum by directing the
respondents to release the pensionary and terminal benefits.
7. Per contra, Sri Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for
Service-III stated that against the acquittal of the petitioner in
1983 1 SCC 305
Criminal Appeal No.39/2018, the alleged wife of the petitioner
preferred a Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2019 before the High Court
of Telangana, at Hyderabad. She addressed a
letter/representation praying not to release the retiral benefits. He
further contended that (a) if the pensioner is found in a
departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave
misconduct or (b) where a pensioner is found in a departmental or
judicial proceeding to have caused pecuniary loss to the Central or
State Government by his misconduct or negligence during his
service (including the service rendered on re-employment after
retirement), (c) the State Government is entitled to withhold or
withdraw pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a
specified period. He further relied on the Full Bench Judgment of
the Allahabad High Court in "Shivagopal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others2" and further relied on "Jarnail Singh Vs. The
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others3","Mahanadi
Coalfields Limited Vs. Rabindranath Choubey4".
8. In "Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Vs. Rabindranath
Choubey5", the delinquent therein has committed serious
misconduct of dishonestly causing coal stock shortages
amounting to Rs.31.65 crores, thereby causing substantial loss to
the employer, for which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
delinquent is not entitled to gratuity even after
superannuation/retirement during pendency of disciplinary
AIR 2019 ALLAHABAD 168
AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 1484
(2020) 18 Supreme Court Cases 71
(2020) 18 Supreme Court Cases 71
proceedings observing that superannuation cannot come to his
rescue and would amount to condonation of guilt.
9. In the present case, there is no pecuniary loss to the State
Government and no disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending
against the petitioner herein. The alleged crime which was a social
crime ended in acquittal. Hence, the above stated citations are not
applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
Moreover, the criminal case pertains to family matter and it
cannot be construed as an offence of serious in nature. As rightly
contested by the petitioner, pension is not a gratituous payment
depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not
claimable as a right. Therefore, withholding the pension, without
any sufficient reason, amounts to violation of fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India viz., right
to life and personal liberty. Moreover, as per the counter affidavit
there is no pecuniary loss caused to the State.
10. This Court relied on the Judgment of this Court dated
28.01.2010 in "Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Vs. R.S.
Rama Krishna Rao". The issue that arose for consideration in the
said case is that, whether the applicant is entitled for payment of
retirement/pensionary benefits after acquittal from the criminal
cases inspite of pending criminal appeals. It was held that,
directing the respondents therein to pay full pension, gratuity and
other retiral benefits to the applicants therein holding that
pendency of the criminal appeal against the order of acquittal is
of no consequence in view of the Rules 9 and 52 of Pension Rules.
11. In the present case, after the Judgment dated 31.12.2019 in
Criminal Appeal No.39/2018 passed by the first appellate Court,
acquitting the petitioner, from the charge, there is no power on the
Government to withhold the pension or retirement benefits.
Therefore, the benefits are liable to be paid immediately after the
Order of acquittal. If the appeal or revision proceedings are in
continuation of the criminal proceedings, there will be no end for
litigation and the employees who have been acquitted honourably
shall not get retirement benefits till the conclusion of all appeals,
revisions, special leave petitions etc. Appeal against the acquittal,
not being continuation of original criminal proceedings. Hence,
Rules 9 and 52 of Pension Rules will not be available to the
Government for withholding the retirement benefits.
12. Hence, in view of the afore stated reasons, as there are no
criminal/judicial proceedings or disciplinary proceedings pending
against the petitioner, I am persuaded to dispose of the Writ
Petition by directing the respondents to release the pensionary
and terminal benefits of the petitioner within a period of three (3)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Failing
which, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the total sum @ 18%
per annum.
13. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No
costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 17-08-2022
EPS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
W.P.No.2826 of 2021
Date: 17-08-2022
EPS
