G. Devasena vs The State Of Telangana And 6 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2334 Tel

                 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
                               AND
             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU


     WRIT PETITION Nos. 18263, 22737, 18249 & 22845 OF 2022

                             Date:06.06.2022

W.P.No.18263 of 2022

Between:

R. Jaya Pradha W/o.L.Veeraiah,
Aged about 69 yrs, Occu : Retired School Assistant
Hindi Pandit, Z.P. High School, Rudraram village,
Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District
(Erstwhile Medak District),
R/o.H.No.5-2-9/1, Ramalayam Road,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500 072
                                               .....Petitioner

     And

The State of Telangana,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad 500 022 & others
                                               .....Respondents

The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

WRIT PETITION Nos. 18263, 22737, 18249 & 22845 OF 2022

COMMON ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao)

Heard Sri A.V.V.S.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in

all the writ petitions, learned Government Pleader for Services and Sri

K.Bala Krishna, learned Standing Counsel.

2. Aggrieved by the decision of respondent-authorities to recover the

amount from retirement benefits/with-holding the gratuity payable to the

petitioners on the ground that they were paid excess amounts earlier, under

G.O.Ms.No.330, Education (H1) Department, dated 10.08.1983, the

petitioners herein filed O.A.Nos.9212 of 2012, 7342 of 2014, 9218 of 2012

and 9977 of 2012 respectively before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative

Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'). The said O.As, filed by the

petitioners were disposed of as covered by the decision in O.A.No.8905 of

2008. In O.A.No.8905 of 2008, the Tribunal observed that the Full Bench of

this Court while up-holding Act 1 of 2005, observed that the amounts

already paid to Grade-II Pandits should not be recovered and sets aside the

direction to recover the amounts from the respective candidates. The

Tribunal therefore, observed that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench

of this Court in W.P.No.21457 of 2004 & Batch, dated 16.04.2010, it is no

more permissible for the employer to recover the alleged excess amount

paid/to adjust from the retirement benefits alleging that excess amount was

paid.

3. The individual orders passed by the Tribunal in several O.As, were not

implemented. The excess amount already adjusted from the gratuity

payable to the individual employees was not repaid. Alleging non-

compliance of the orders, C.A.No.1320 of 2013 & Batch were filed before the

Tribunal. When these C.As, were listed, the Tribunal was informed that

aggrieved by the order of Tribunal in O.A.No.8905 of 2008, W.P.No.33594 of

2013 was filed before this Court and by order, dated 25.11.2013 in

W.P.M.P.No.41799 of 2013, this Court granted interim stay of operation of

the order of the Tribunal. Taking note of this development, the Tribunal

disposed of all the contempt cases observing that no direction can be issued

to comply with the orders passed in O.As, pending disposal of W.P.No.33594

of 2013 and granted liberty to the applicants to avail appropriate remedy if

the interim order is vacated or the writ petition is finally disposed of.

4. The Court is informed that W.P.No.33594 of 2013 was transferred to

Andhra Pradesh High Court and by order dated 06.04.2021, the said writ

petition was dismissed. Thus, the cloud of uncertainty was finally cleared

on 06.04.2021.

s

5. These writ petitions are filed praying to direct the respondents to

implement the directions issued by the Tribunal in the respective O.As.

6. Learned Government Pleader, opposed the prayer sought by the

petitioners on the ground that there is inordinate delay in seeking

implementation of directions of the Tribunal and after long lapse of time, it

is not open to the petitioners to seek enforcement of orders. Petitioners

having kept quiet for so long, are dis-entitled to seek equitable relief from

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the principle of

delay and latches would equally apply to the petitioners.

7. The said contention is stated to be rejected for two reasons. Firstly,

the O.As, were disposed of by following the directions issued in O.A.No.8905

of 2008. The said decision of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court

in W.P.No.33594 of 2013 and this Court stayed the operation of order of the

Tribunal. In view of the stay granted by this Court in the main O.A., the

Tribunal was not inclined to proceed further with the contempt applications

and disposed of the contempt applications, by order dated 30.10.2015

granting liberty to the applicants to take appropriate steps after disposal of

W.P.No.33594 of 2013.

8. Secondly, having regard to the fact that W.P.No.33594 of 2013 was

filed challenging the order in O.A.No.8905 of 2008 and the said writ petition

was pending till 06.04.2021, it cannot be said that petitioners were negligent

in asserting their right and seek enforcement of the directions of the

Tribunal and kept quiet unreasonably for long time without any

justification. Till 06.04.2021, the main order of the Tribunal was stayed by

this Court and therefore, they could not have taken steps to file contempt

cases or institute the writ petitions before this Court seeking enforcement of

directions of the Tribunal, more so, having regard to the view taken by the

Tribunal, in batch of contempt applications, by order dated 30.10.2015.

9. In the peculiar facts of these cases, it cannot be said any more that

there was inordinate delay in prosecuting the grievance of the petitioners.

Furthermore, gratuity is payable to the employees based on the service

rendered by them and contributions made towards gratuity. A retired

employee is entitled as a matter of right to receive the gratuity amount on

his retirement. The Revised Pension Rules provide payment of interest on

delayed payment of gratuity. The right to receive full gratuity amount is

denied to the petitioners on the illegal ground that excess amount was paid

to them under G.O.Ms.No.330, even though, the Full Bench of this Court in

a case reported in State Language Teachers' Association, Hyderabad and

Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others1 held that no recovery

should be effected. Thus, the respondents are precluded from taking a plea

that the writ petitions should be dismissed on the ground of delay, when

they themselves have violated the directions of the Full Bench of this Court

prosecuted avoidable litigation and illegally kept the money due to the

petitioners for a very long time.

10. The writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to

refund the gratuity amount with-held by them, within eight weeks (8) from

the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if

any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

__________________________ SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU,J 6th June, 2022 Rds

(2010) 4 ALT 145