Shaik Saleem v. 1. The State of Telangana

disperse the same to the plaintiff in suit in OS.No.g6112016 pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge Nalgonda and recovered the other dues as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice besides being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and the Rules of Pension 1871 and Sec.60 of CPC as well as Memo dated 03-03-2010 issued by the Government and consequently set aside the Memorandum .dated 22-11-2017 vide C.No.6912lA712016-2017 issued by the Respondent No.2. \ ,, :. i' I I ! I I I I t I I I It E T // !.A.NO:l OF 2019 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 not to recover the gratuity amount of Rs.3,92,6g8/- of the Petitioner from the Respondent No.3 for the purpose of dispersing the same altogether to the third parties and consider the representation date 26-09-2018, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MD.IQBAL ALI JAVTD Counselfor the Respondents : G.P FOR HOME (SERVICES) The Court made the following ORDER 1, wp_1595_2019 NBK, J ITI ORDER: WRIT PETITIO N No.1695 of 2019 The petitioner was an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, and had taken Voluntary Retirement from service on 30.09.2016. It is his grievance that the 2nd respondent-Superintendent of Police has withhetd his gratuity amount of Rs.3,92,698 with an intention to disburse the same to the plaintiff in the Suit O.S.No.36l of 2016 pending on the f,rle of Junior Civit Judge, Nalgonda and recovered the other dues, and the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the Pension Rules, and Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. None appeared for the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for Home (Services) is present and advanced arguments. Perused the record.

3. At the outset, a perusal of the writ affidavit as well as the counter affidavit would disclose that the petitioner had availed House Building Advance and Cooperative Credit Society loan from the Department, and the same were due and payable by the petitioner as on the date of his voluntary retirement. Apart from that he allegedly owes an amount of Rs.3,92,698 to one Mareddy Srinivas Reddy who filed a Suit, O.S.No.361 of 2016 before the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, seeking recovery of the amount. The trial Court, vide Order dated L7 .10.2015 passed in I.A.No .653 of 2016 in the said Suit, directed the Drawing Officer, Administrative Offrcer, District Police Offce, District Police Headquarters, Nalgonda, directed to call upon the writ petitioner (Shaik Saleem) to furnish security for the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, failing which the petition schedule amount to be attached or produce and placed at the disposal ofthis Court when required orthe value thereof, or such portion of the value as the case may be sufficient to'satisff any decree that may be passed against him. 2 wp_1695_2019 NBK, J

4. Further, the documents filed along with the counler affidavit, would show that the petitioner himselfhas given an undertaking dated 28.11.2016 (scribed in Telugu at page No.15 ofthe counter affidavit of2.d respondent) requesting to recover the amounts due from his pension benefits and disburse the balance amounts payable to him. Petitioner submitted yet another undertaking dated07.04.2017 (scribed in Telugu, with English translation), wherein it was acknowledged that the pension amounts, after withholding the dues, has been released and that he would pay the equivalent amount ofthe withheld gratuity and seek release of the withheld amount as per the order.

5. It is to be noted that the Drawing Officer has been directed by the trial Court to call on the writ petitioner to fumish security for the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- failing which the petition schedute amount be attached or produced and placed at the disposal of the Court when required. It is setfled law, and even as per Pension Rules, the Covemment can withhold a portion or full of the pension amount in case of pending proceedings; and further it is incumbent for the individual to clear oflthe dues prior to retirement and upon failure to clear off the dues the competent authority can recover the dues payable from the pensionary benefirs of the individuat.

7. Be that as it may, in the insrant case, in view of the Suit proceedings pending against the writ petitioner, and the dues being non-governmental dues, the Pension Sanctioning Authority has remitted the amounts to the 2nd respondent as it was not empowered to withhold retirement benefits. However, in view of the specific onders of the trial Court to the Drawing offrcer of the 2nd respondent office to call on the writ petitioner for furnishing of security equivalent to amount of Rs.2,50,000 /-, the 2nd respondent issued a Memorandum dated 22.rr.2017 to the writ petitioner to remit the Non- Govemment dues with the office of' 2nd respondent so ers to release the 5 wp_1695_2019 NBK, J retirement gratuity that has been withheld. However, there is nothing placed on record by the petitioner to show that he has remitted the amount directed by the trial Court before the 2nd respondent or the Drawing Officer of the 2nd respondent office for producing before the trial Court when required in regard to Suit in O.S.No.36l of 2016. The petitioner requested the competent authority to process his pension and release the amounts after recovering the dues owed by him. Further, the petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the pension amounts (after recovery of loans owed by him to the Department), and the petitioner further undertook (as per letter dated 07 .04.2017) to pay the equivalent amount as per the order (of the trial Court), and then seek release of gratuity amount, which undertaking he apparently failed to honour as per the recitals in the counter affidavit. However, it appears that the 2nd respondent has withheld the gratuity of Rs.3,92,6g}l- as against the Rs.2,50,000/- directed by the trial Court. tn that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent/competent authority shall

8. only withhotd only the amount as ordered by the trial Court, and release the balance amount withheld, if any, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [n case the petitioner has already furnished sufficient security equivalent to the amount ordered by the trial Court and produces a copy thereof before the 2nd respondent/Drawing Offrcer, the entire amount of gratuity that has been withheld by the 2nd respondent shall be released.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ M. OSMAN ALI BAIG SECTION OFFICER To o

1. The P6ncipal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The-superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3. The De'puty Director, District Treasury Office Nalgonda, N4gonda District. 4. Two CC's [o G.P FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

5. Ohe CC to SRI MD.IQBAL ALI JAVID, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies { I HIGH COURT DATED i0710712025 ii '"E d ( {rf fii;m * .:..--..-...- 1:.1.) ORDER WP.No.1695 of 2019 ', DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. e6