Telangana High Court
B Rajaiah vs A P State Road Transport Corporation, on 15 December, 2023
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.5160 of 2015
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order, dated
31.01.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent withholding the gratuity
and leave encashment amounts payable to the petitioner.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent-
Corporation on 01.11.1983 and on subsequent promotions, he had
retired from service on attaining superannuation on 31.01.2015 as a
Depot Clerk. After his retirement, the respondents have refused to
release the amounts payable to him towards gratuity and
encashment of leave on the ground that a complaint was lodged by
SC/ST Welfare Association alleging that he had produced the forged
caste certificate at the time of his appointment in the Corporation. It
is his case that the respondents have no authority to withhold his
retirement benefits after his retirement, as there does not exist the
relationship of employer and employee. Accordingly, he prayed to
set aside the impugned orders.
4. Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that as a
complaint was received against the petitioner that he had produced
2 JS, J
the forged caste certificate at the time of his appointment, a letter
was addressed to the petitioner on 20.01.2015 calling upon him to
appear before the authorities to inquire about the same. However,
the said letter was returned with an endorsement that the addressee
was not available. While so, the petitioner had retired from service
on 31.01.2015 on superannuation and all the retirement benefits are
paid to him except the leave encashment and gratuity amounts. It is
also stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the interim
orders of this Court, an amount of Rs.4,58,240/- was paid to the
petitioner towards gratuity. It is the case of respondents that since
the genuineness of the caste certificate of petitioner is to be inquired
into, the impugned order is passed withholding the amounts payable
to him. Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. The facts of the matter are that the petitioner was appointed
on 01.11.1983 and retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.01.2015. The respondents have addressed
letter, dated 20.01.2015 calling upon the petitioner to appear before
them to inquire into the caste certificate produced by him at the time
of his appointment. There is no dispute with regard to the said issue
while the petitioner was in service since 1983 and just 10 days prior
to the retirement, the respondents have initiated steps on the ground
that they received complaint at that point of time. In this
3 JS, J
connection, a reference can be made to the judgment of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in General Manager, Adilabad District
Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Adilabad v. K.Ranga Rao and
another 1, relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner, wherein it
is held that initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceedings
against a superannuated officer is not permissible in the absence of
Regulation to that effect. The said judgment is squarely applicable to
the facts of the present case, as in this case also, the gratuity and
leave encashment amounts were withheld after the retirement of
petitioner on superannuation without there being any Regulation to
that effect. Having allowed the petitioner to work from 1983 and
having allowed him to retire from service, it is not open for the
respondents to withhold the retirement benefits.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed setting
aside the order, dated 31.01.2015. The respondents are directed to
pay to the petitioner, the gratuity and leave encashment amounts
after deducting the amounts already paid to him. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date:15.12.2023
Ksk
2003 (3) L.L.N. 944
