B. JYOTHI LAKSHMI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1. B. JYOTHI LAKSHMI, W/O VARASALA SRI RAM MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RETIRED MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, R/O D.NO.5-7-1/377 (N), ROAD N0.8-A, HARIHARAPURAM COLONY, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL IV FR AND LR VELAGAPUDI, CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS. AMARAVATHI. FINANCE HR

3. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, A.P., RAYAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

4. THE VICE CHAIRMAN, KADAPA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (KUDA), REDDY COLONY, CHINNA CHOWK, YSR- KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P-516002 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in withholding 80 percent of the Retirement Gratuity and the balance 20percent of Earned Leave Encashment payable to the petitioner solely on the ground of pendency of criminal cases in C.C.No.34 of 2018 arising out of Crime No.06/RCT- RJY/2006 and C.C.No.164 of 2018 arising out of Crime No.13/RCT- RJY/2011 pending before the Honble Court of SPE and ACB Cases, Rajahmundry, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Rule 52(1 )(c) read with the II Proviso of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and also contrary to G.O.Rt.No.1097, Finance and Planning Department dated 22-06-2000 and Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith release 80 percent of the Retirement Gratuity and the balance 20 percent of Earned Leave Encashment payable to the petitioner together with interest within a stipulated time, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SAYED SARDAR SAHEB AKIL Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.20283 of 2026 ORDER:

1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondents in withholding 80% of retirement gratuity and balance 20% of earned leave encashment payable to the Petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The Petitioner had joined in the Directorate of Municipal Administration, Andhra Pradesh on 22.02.1991 as Junior Assistant. Subsequently, she discharged her duties in various capacities and after rendering her service for about 34 years, she retired from her service as Administrative Officeron 30.04.2025 upon attaining the age of superannuation. While the Petitioner was in her service, the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau registered two crimes against her vide Cr.No.06/RCT-RJY/2006 and Cr.No.13/RCT-RJY/2011 with regard to acceptance of bribe.

3. Upon completion of the investigation and filing of the respective charge-sheets, the crimes registered vide Cr.No.06/RCT-RJY/2006 and Cr.No.13/RCT-RJY/2011 were taken on file as C.C.No.34 of 2018 and C.C.No.164 of 2018, respectively, by the Special Court for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Rajahmundry.The grievance of the Petitioner 4 now is that, although, she retired from her service on 30.04.2025, the retirement benefits i.e., gratuity, earned leave encashment were not being released. Hence, the Writ Petition came to be filed.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – II submitted that there is a bar for payment prescribed under Rule No.52 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules 1980 and relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.196 of 2022, dated 16.02.2022.

5. Heard the counsels.

6. The Division bench of this Court in W.A.No.196 of 2022 vide its orders, dated 16.02.2022 examined the entitlement of gratuity of a person facing criminal case and denied the relief. However, the relief for leave encashment was sustained. Paragraph Nos.9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are extracted below:-

9. A joint reading of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Section 52 of the Rules, 1980 along with G.O.Rt.No.1097 dated 22.06.2000 would make it clear that the proviso appended to clause (c) concerns a situation where the retired Government Servant is undergoing departmental proceedings. the retired The proviso does not deal with a situation where Government Servant is facing judicial proceedings. While the first part of clause(c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980 provides that no gratuity shall be paid until the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings or issue of the final orders, the proviso enables the Government to release 80% of the eligible gratuity in appropriate cases, where the retired Government Servant is facing the disciplinary proceedings. However, the said enabling proviso has not dealt with a situation where the retired Government Servant is facing judicial proceedings. 5

10. The case decided by the Division Bench of common High Court in W.P. No.30443 of 2016 was dealing with the prayer of a retired Government Servant for release of leave encashment. It was not dealing with the prayer for release of 80% of gratuity. The judgment in the matter of R. Veerabhadram vs. Government of A.P. reported in (1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 43 referred by the learned single Judge clearly holds that by virtue of Rule 52(c) of the Rules, 1980, there is an express power empowering the Government to withhold gratuity during the pendency of any judicial proceedings against the employee. Even though issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1097, the fact remains that there is no amendment in the main part of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980. As we have mentioned earlier, the proviso only concerns a situation where the employee is facing disciplinary proceedings and not when he isfacing judicial proceedings. In our considered view, the judgment in the case of R.Veerabhadram (supra) would still hold in a case where the employee is facing judicial proceedings. rendered before judgment was the said

11. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for leave encashment. To this extent, learned State counsel would not object to the prayer because, according to him, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in W.P. No.30443 of 2016 deals with encashment of leave and moreover, clause(c) of sub-rule(1) of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980 deals with gratuity and not with leave encashment.

12. For the foregoing discussion, the said part of the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge allowing payment of 80% of the retirement gratuity to the writ petitioner is set aside. However, we observe that the writ petitioner is entitled to leave encashment.

13. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the learned single Judge to the above extent. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

7. In view of the above, the claim of the Petitioner for gratuity is rejected and this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions:- (i) The Respondent-Authorities are directed release the balance 20% earned leave encashment amount to the Petitioner, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6

8. No order as to costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall standclosed. Date: 23.07.2026 ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 95 WRIT PETITION No.20283 of 2026 Dated:23.07.2026