High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that a)Declaring that actjon of the Respondent in not releasing the full pension and retiremental benefits (Commutation and Gratuity) payable to the Petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal case viz., CC No.4O212018 filed U/s.498(A), 506 of IPC and Section-3 & 4 of DP Act, against the Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory violating Article 14, 16, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of the lndia. b)Further declare that the Respondents have no right to withhold the pension and retiremental benefits payable to the Petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal case against the Petitioner U/s.498(A), 506 of IPC and Section - 3 and 4 of DP Act. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the Respondents to forthwith release/pay full pension to the Petitioner and retiremental benefits payable to the Petitioner in pursuance of his retirement dated 31 .05.2024 pending disposal of the writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2,4 & 5: GP FOR SERVICES Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K.BALA KRISHNA, SC FOR AG The Court made the following: ORDER i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA'IESHWAR RAO T ION No.7185 of2O2S ORDER: petrtroner, HeardSriSrinivasaRaoMadiraju'learnedcounselforthe learned Government Pleader for Services for respondents No'l, 214 and 5 and Sri K' Bala Krishna' learned Standing Counsel for respondent No'3' 2. The present Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents to release full pension to the petitioner and retirementa'l bene{its to the petitioner in pursuance of his retirement on

31.o5.2024 the petitioner submits that the 3. Learned s6un56l for petitioner was initially appointed as Office Subordinate on the Office of B'T'O'' Devarakonda' Subsequentlyl the petitioner was promoted as a Cashier in the year 2000, as a Junior Accountant in the year 2OO6' as a

24.O9.1992 SeniorAccountantand|rnallypromotedasaSubTreasury Officer and after serving the department for about 32 years' he retired from servrce on 31.O5.2024 on attaining the age of and while he was in service' he was not issued superannuation 2 with any charge memo and no disciplinar] prorreedings were pending against him. 3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner fr-rrther submits that the petitioner had two daughters and one s;on. The name of the second son of the petitioner is Alle Shiva Kumar and his marriage was perform ed on 27.02.2016 with one Bhalusree After the marriage, she was not living properly with the son of the petitioner. She had always an intention to cr,:ate problems not only to her husband but also to all the family members. Taking advantage of the criminal procedure codr:, she lodged a false complaint before the P.S. Miryalaguda, cn O4.O7.2018. The said case \\,as registered as FIR No.1O4 of 2O18 of P.S. Miryalaguda, under section 498(A) and 506 of IPC and Section- 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 3 (ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is no way concerned with the saicl criminal case and it was registered way back in 2O 18 and still the matter is pending for consideration before the Trial Court and under the guise of pendency of the said criminal case, the respondent authorities are not paying the full pension to the petitioner and - 3 did not release he commutation of pension and gratuity payable to the petitioner and to that effect they i ssued a Memo No.Hl I 267 3 I 2024 , dated lo '06 '2024 ' Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the 4 . petitioner was sanction ed 75oh of the normal pension and only 25oh is not released due to pendency of the criminal case'

5.Learnedcounselforthepetitionervehementlyargrredthat the respondents have no authority to withhold the pension'ald pensionery benefits payable to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal case registered against him under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act' In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Mahesh Chandra Soni Vs' State ot Raicrstlrcrn and otherst wherein it was held as under: '19. In the co-se of Sau Sheela Rameshchandro Bargaje us' The Administrotiue Offcer' Municipal Mucation Boord & Anr., tuit petition No'12817 of 2017' the High Court of BombaY ln's obserued as under:- "78. In our view, the ciminal proceedings filed at the instonce of the daughter-in lortL of the petttioner under '2024;RJ-JP:10576 \ \ 4 Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code ond otht:r related prouisions agatnst the petitioner haue nothing to do urith the emploAment of the petitioner with respondent nos. .t and 3. If ang cim tal proceedings uould haue been ,fiied and pending inttestiqation relating to the enlploAmetl| of the petitioner LL,ith thc respondent no. I , the situatior,. u..Duld haue been different. The principle loid doutn bg thi:; Court in case of Shrikar Ramchandra Inamdar (supra) r,pplies to the facts [2024:RJJI,:10576] (17 of 19) ICW 1a89t,r:2023] of this cose. Vle do not propose to take ang different uieu,t in. the matter " 20. In the present case, the petitioner ha-s serued tuith the respondents for about 38 years uith an unble,mished seruice record as nothing has been broughl before t4:s Court bg the resoctndcnts lhat his conduct was euer fottnd to be inappropriate dtLinq the uhole seruice tenure. The F,enston, gratuitA ancJ other retiral benefits are the earninT:; of an emplogee fnr the seruices rendered by him with the respondents. TrLkitq auLag or u;ithholding such benertts after retirem.ent omounts to depiuing the petitioner ft om the ngfu b Life, It<:cctuse the retiral benefits are the so,trces by Luhich the petitioner and his family anange for ttu'ir bread and other neces.sifies. 2I . On consideration of the laut, referred in the abote paras, a conu[cted candidate for the offences in regarrl to the familg dispute.s t:an also be giuen appointment and a-fter his appointment he u.tilL also earn the seruice benefits tdtich he will get on lll.s retirement. Whether ang appointment of such a person can depiue him from the retiral benefits ,tlrter his retirement, the ansluer LDould be no. - 5 - In the present case, the petitioner has served with the 6. respondents for about 32 years with an unblemished service record as nothing has been brought before this Court by the respondents that his conduct was ever found to be inappropriate during the whole service tenure' The pension' gratuity and other retiral benefits are the earnings of an employee for the services rendered by him with the respondents. Taking away or withholding such benehts after retirement amounts to depriving the petitioner from the right to life because the retiral benel-rts are the sources by which the petitioner and his family arrange for their bread and other necessities. The petitioner rendered an unblemished service as he was not issued with any charge memo and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him; except the above criminal case, as such, the petitioner is entitled to full pension and other retiral benehts from the respondents' In view of the foregoing discussion and in view of the ratio 7 . laid down in the above judgment' no person shall suffer starvation, especially retired employees' based on the pendency of a criminal proceedings, which is strictly confined to his own ( ( 6 l-) family members and personal issues, the autlt,trities have no right to stop the full pension of the retired employee. Thus, the respondent authorities are directed to release luLll pension and other retiremental benefits in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

8. With the above clirection, the Writ petitior: is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand ciosed. SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER The Principal Secretary to Govemment, Finance Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Director of Treasuring and Accounts, Telangana, Hyderabad The Principal Accountant and General (AandE), Telangana, Hyderabad. The Deputy Director of Treasuries, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District The Sub Treasury Officer, Chandur, Naglonda District One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI K.BALA KRISHNA, SC FOR AG [OPUC] Two CD Copies To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. 9. PSK. LS h.,- HIGH COURT DATED:2 410312025 ORDER WP.No.7185 of 2025 o .a( ;J [i TA 16- 0 I r,fB 2 UZ5 .4. * () t tspa rC!\( =:--' a .b - DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1e- -f"A Xs