Gudipati Venkata Krishna Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ttrerewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one iri the nature of the WRIT OF MANDAMUS quashing the Memo in C.No. A4112117121 Leavel2017-18 dated 29.09.2018 issued by the Respondent No.S and the Memo/Appeal in C.No' 41lB1l2O2O dated 07.04.2021 passed by the Respondent No.4 and consequently direct the Respondents to settle the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner, namely Encashment of Leave Salary (ELFP), tor (172)days with interest at @18% p.a. on the delayed payment to the petitioner from the date of retirement, 31 .O7.2015 till the date of settlement of the Encashment of Leave ( Prayer is amended as per C.O dt. 1311012023 in lA 01/2023) lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition undr:r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Responclent No. 4 to dispose the Appeal dated 07.02.2020 pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. R. LAXMINARASIMHA RAO Gounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE IIONOURABLE SMT.IUSTICE T.MADTIAVI DEVI W.P.No.4568 of2O2L ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus to quash the Memo in C'No'A4/ l2ll7l2l I*avel2Ol7-18, dated 2g-Og-2OL8 issued by the Respondent No.5 and the Memo/Appeal in C'No'41/81/2O2O' dated O7.O4.2O21 passed by the Respondent No'4, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to settle the retirement benehts payable to the petitioner namely Encashment of Leave Satary (ELFPI for 172 days with interest @ L8o/o p-a., on the delayed paJment to the petitioner from the date of retirement i.e., 31.O7'2015 till the date of settlement of the Encashment of kave and to pass such other order or orders in the interest ofjustice'

2. Brief facts leading to the frling of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable ot 27.02.1979 artd, was promoted as Head Constable and thereafter as Sub-lnspector of Police and he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 3l'O7 '2015' On 2 TM4J w.P.No- 456a oJ 2O2t

01.09.2015,, the Commissioner of police, Karimnagar, from whose office, the petitioner retired, issued District order intimating that the petitioner was having 12g days of ELFp and 2O2 dzrys of ELHp to his credit as on the date of his retirement i.e., on 3l.O7.2OLS and that as per G.O.Ms.No.154 Fin'(FR-I) Department, dated o4.o5.2o1o, the petitioner was entitled to surrender total of 30O days of ELFp and ELHp for leave encastLment. On 16.O4.2OlO, the petitioner submitted a representation stating that there were certain discrepancies in his leave account of Service Register and requested the olEcer to verify the entries of Service Register with the other relevant records i.e., leave sanction orders, his duty records and requested to issue revised leave sanction orders. When there was no response to the same, the petitioner submitted another representation on 15. 12.2016 giving the details of the period during which he has worked, but has been wrongly shovrn that he has applied for leave ancl was the said days. After considering the representatior:Ls of the petitioner, the respondents have issued a memo datectt 29.O9.2O1g giving the details of the leave as recorded in his Service Register and that the contentions of sanctioned leave for i:': 3 rXD'J W.P,Ifu. 155A oJ 2021 the petitioner with regard to the discrepancies in the leave accounts are not correct. Challenging the same' this Writ Petition was hled. The petitioner had also submitted an appeal to the respondent No'2 on O7 'O2'2O20 and the same was dismissed vide Memo dated 07 'O4'2O21' The appellate authority observed that the petitioner has neither lost any pecuniary benefit nor has the Government benefrted from the same since only a maximum of 3OO days can be encashed by any retired employee and that the petitioner has been all'owed to encash the same. Challenging the appellate order also' the prayer in the writ Petition was amended'

3. lrarned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the various entries' which according to him, have been wrongly entered in his Service Register' On his insistence that some of the entries have been wrongly entered in his service register and that some of the entries are madeonwhitesheets,thisCourtdirected'therespondentsto furnish his service record and accordingly, the original of the Service Register of the petitioner has been furnished by the learned Government Pleader for Home' On perusal and 4 TAD,J w.P-No. 4s6a oJ 2021 comparison of the same with the recitals of th.e leave summary ol the petitioner in Memo dated 29.O9.2018, this Court has observed as under: The Point- 1 is mentioned as under: " 1 . (a) He u)as sanctioned 30 clags ELF'P from

08.O8.1982 to O7.09.1982 uide C.No.A7/322/ 82. (b) He utas sanctioned (17) dags ELFP from 10.10.1982 to 26. 10. 1982 uide C.No.A7/ 483/ 82. He utos sanctioned (3O) dags and (17) dags ELFP in difference orders, but Le is presuming ttlat lle has auailed (17) dags ELFP, out of (30) days ELFP sanctioned to him. Hi.s presumption is not correct. (c) I{e u)as sanctioned (3O) days ELF.P uide C.No.A7/32:2/82; (17) dags ELFP uide C.No.A7/322/82; (17) dags ELFP uide C.No.A7/483/82 and (B) dags LWP uide C.No.A7/24t5/82. Hence 30+17+08:55 uhich dias non of (O5) dags were deducted.' This Court finds that the entries of leave referred to in Point- 1(a) ale recorded on Page No.7 of the Service Register and Point-1(b) is also recorded in the Service Register on Page No.S. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conclusion in Point- I that the petitioner hzrs been sanctioned 3O days ELFP vide C.No.A7 /322/82, is not correct and is found to have been cancelled subsequently. However, ':tay ''/ , 5 TXD,J w-P-No. 156A oJ 2O2l thisCourtfrndsthatthereisnosuchentryintheService Register. There is only one entry of salction of 17 days vide C.No.A7/483 /82- l*arned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that 30 days ELFP leave sanctioned vide C.No.A7 /3221a2, was subsequently cancelled vide C.No.275/A7 /83. However, the learned government pleader submitted that the cancellation of leave of 3O days was the leave sanctioned by C'No'2751A7 /83 and it is not with regard to the leave granted under C'No'A7/322/82' This Court is thus, convinced that the cancellation of 3O days leave is not the leave which was sanctioned vide C'No'A7 1322182' 4. The Point-2 is mentioned as under: "2. He has not produced any supporting euidence that he hns not auailed (10) dags sick leaue from 21'12'1983 to 30.12.1983 on Medical Certificate uide C'No'55/A7/ 1984' He uas sanctioned (20) dags ammuted leaue from 1g.o3.1984too7.o4.1984bgdebiting(40)dogsELHP.There is ra entry in Seruice Book debiting (2O) dags ELFP' It might be entered as ELFP in L'R' due to ouer sight'" As regards the Point-2 is concerned' this Court finds thatthereiSanentryoflodaysleavegrantedvide C.No.55/A7/ 1984' However' the learned counsel for the 6 TND,J w.P.tIo. 4s6A ol2021 petitioner submitted ttrat the petitioner was on duty during the relevarLt period as recorded in the monthly allowance register. He has drawn tJ:e attention of this Court to page No.36 of the papers filed along with writ petition where vide DO.2l97/83, it is recorded that Rs.22S/- was granted as monthly atlowance to tlle petitioner w.e.f. O1,12.g3 to I5.O2.a4. ll'herefore, this Court is inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner, though the entries are not made in the Service Register, but it is mentioned at page 116 as to the period i.e., for how many days, the a_llowance of R.s.22S/_ was grarrtecl and it includes tJle period of sick leaves of IO days i.e., fron 21.12.L983 to 31.12.1983. Therefcrre, the contention c,f the petitioner has to be accepted. As regards tl.e 20 days commuted leave from 19.03. 1984 to 07.04. 1984 by debiting 4O days ELHp, ir is submitted that the relevant entry is on white paper and therefore, th.e same cannot be accepted. This contention of the petitioner also has been found to be correct and hzLs to be accepted. 7 TrD,.t w-P-No- 156a oJ 2027

5. The Point-4 is mentioned as under: "4.(a) He has not produced any euidence that he u)as ott Naxalite dutg, duing th.e period. (b) He ua.s sanctioned (15) days ASL from O1.O1.1988 to

15.01.1988 in C.No.577/A7/ 88. (c) He u.tas sanctioned (15) days ASL from 01.O7.1988 to

15.O7.1988. (d) He utas sa nctioned (15) dags regular Surrender Leaue from O1.1 1. 1988 to 15. 1 1 . 1988. " The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is tl-at tJre petitioner was the incharge of Anti-extremist Special Party during the period from April, 1988 to May, 1988 and an encounter took place on 14.O5.1988 wherein there was exchange of fire and one Mekala Narsiah sustained injury and had died on the spot and the petitioner's name was recommended for the award of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister's Shourya Pathakam and in the citation, the respondent No.S has stated that on 14.05.1988 in the early hours, the CI with the Special party including the HC-1O18 Krishna Reddy moved in Godavarikhani Town Police Station in order to apprehend the UG extremists anticipating that thef are likely to paste posters and that the extremist was 8 TUD,J w.P.No. 4564 ol2o2t killed during the said operation. It is submitted that on conferment of the award, the petitioner was prom.oted as Sub-lnspector of Police out of seniority basis. It is stLbmitted that contrary to the above, in the Service Register, it was recorded as that he was on sick leave from 15.O4. 1988 to

15.05.1988 i.e., 3O days. Therefore, according to him, this entry in the Service Register is not correct and has been done to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate leaves. However, this Court finds that there does not appear to be any insertion of any leave period in the Register and the Register was being written corrtinuously and that the 3O days leave was sanctioned vide C.No. 133/A7 188 ald 3 days of leave was treated as 'c[ies-non'and t]re entry was made on page No.9 of the Service lRegister. However, the conferment of the .Shourya Pathakam amd also promotion as Sub-Inspector carlnot be doubted. Ttrerefore, there is certainly a discrepanr:y with regard to his alleged sick leave during the above per.Lod and hence, it is leeld that he 'was on duty during April-Ma1r, legg and has to be paid emoluments accordingly w/ 9 TAD,J W.P.No. 456e of 2o27

6. The Point-s is mentioned as under: '5. (a) and. (b): He tua's sanctioned (25) dags ELFP uide C.No.A6/314/6263/91 pior to sanction of regutar surren'der leaue from 01.0g.1g91 to 1 5'O9'1991 (C'No'A7/ 343/ 6829/ 91)' Later th.e dates of availment of (25) days ELFP uere entered in Seruice Book as from 22' 1 O' 1 gg 1 to 1 5' 1 1' 1 99 1' Hence,hisdoubtlanaheauailed(25)dagsELFPpriorto sarrction of sick leaue is not correct as Le hoLs auailed (25) days ELFP from 22.1O.1991 to 15'11'1991' (c) There is no such writing'" This entry is found at Page No'9 of Service Register' However, tlnere is some discrepancy in this entry as it should have been written after the next entry i'e'' A7 l3a3/6899 l9l for 15 days w.e.f' O1'09'1991 to 15'O9'1991' the entry referred to in Para-S(a) is above the said entry' There is thus a doubt as to why the entry made in October/ November- 1991 was written prior to September' 1991' Therefore' the contention of the petitioner has to be accepted in this regard' The Points - 6 &' 7 are mentioned as under: 7 . '6. On receipt of Memo C'No'A7/ 277/ 18O1/ 1992 dt.ol.o\.lgg2leuouldhauebroughtthedoubttothenoticeof tLE SP Karimnagar, so that d'oubt tttould Lwue been cleared' But lw failed to do so' 10 'I D,J w.P.No. 1s6A of 2O2t

7. (a) On receipt of Memo C.No.A7/382/3062 dt. 01.09.1993 Lte uould hnue brought the d.oubt to tlrc ruotice of SP Kaimnoga4 so that tl,re doubt would hnue been cleared, But he faile,C to do so. (b) Th:ere was no balance of (1SZ) dags as claimed by him." As regards Points - 6 & 7 are concerned, there is no reference to any leave period, but only an observatio n about the contentions of the petitioner t-hat he did not rzrise the doubts about the leave entries and did not bring the same to the notice of the S.p., Karimnagar, immediately. The learned counsel lor the petitioner submitted as soon as he has come to know about the discrepancies in the Service Register, he had submitt_ed a detailed representation to the respondent No.S, but ttre respondents did not consider the same and further he has drawn t]le attention of this Court to the relevant parzLs in his representation.

8. Thus, after going through all .the documents and as observed ilbove, all the entries are a-lready recorded in the Service Register. Except for the entries with regard to points 2, 4 & 5, for r,he period of April to May, 19gg and October and I , 11 'ffrD,J W.P.tto. 456a ol2o21 November, LggL, this Court is satisfied with the .discrepancies in the Service Register as pointed out by the petitioner. However, this Court frnds that no useful purpose would be served at this stage, to refer the matter for verifrcation or even for investigation after lapse of such a long Lime and in the face of admission by the respondent authorities that no other records are available with them' A Government servant is entifled/eligible for encashment of a maximum of 3OO days only' Therefore, taking the leave account of the petitioner as obseryed above by this Court' the petitioner shall be allowed encashment of 3OO days i'e'' both ELFP and ELHP put together. The respondents are directed to consider and pass necessarJi orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order' The petitioner shall also be eligible for interest on the balance amount payable to the petitio r'ler @ 8o/o per uulnum from the date of frling of this writ petition till the date of payment' 9 . Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed ' There shall be no order as to costs' t2 T4J W.P.No. 456a ol2O21 10 Miscellaneous petitions, if *y, pending in this writ petitic,n, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER SD/.T. JA ASSISTANT REGI E RAR Hyderabad T.S.,Hyderabad.

1. The Principal Secretarv (Home), Govemment of Telangana, Secretariat, 2. The Director (jeneral of police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The tns.pector Generar or poricb, ruort'n-io-#, wiringrrzt irkJi'riptor, 4' The Deputy rnspector Generar of porice, AR Head euarters, Mukarrampura, 5. The Commissioner of e9t!9q, {n Head euarters, Mukanampura, Karimnaqar 6. one CC to SRt. R LAxlrlt)l4RAsirran-n-nn'o-'n'oroc"ieToFUc 7. Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME ,t-tigh Court iorlhetiat" ofTetanglna at B. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUTI Karimnagar BM ABS I 1HE S{a 7.€ T o( 2 5 FiE 2[25 + ? o J r) t * l)E HIGH COURT DATED:21n112025 I ORDER WP.No.4568 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS s, )>