Heard Sri v. Jagapathi

Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances statpd in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of [\4andamus, dectaring the action of 1st Respondent in not sanctioning Pension' Gratuity, teave encashment salary and other retriat benefits to the Petitioner, as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently' direct 1st Respondent to forthwith sanction pension, Gratuity, commuted Value of Pension and Leave Encashment Salary to which petitioner is entitled for his (42) years qualifying seryice, together with interest @ 1g percent per annum from 01 '07'2Q24 to till payment is made to the petitioner and with all other consequential benefits, monetary or othenrvise. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 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 grant interim direction directing 1st Respondent to consider sanctioning Pension, Gratuity and Leave Encashment Salary to the Petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.JAGAPATHI counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : sRl A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAo counsel for the Respondent No.2 : G.P FoR ROADS AND BUILDINGS The Court made the following ORDER .: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK IURIT PTTITION No.92 12 of 2o25 ORDER: This writ Petition, under Articre 226 of the constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring itre action of lst Respondent in not sanctioning Pension, Gratuity, leave encashment salary and other retrial benefits to the petitioner, as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently, direlt l"t Respondent to forthwith sanction pension, Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension and Leave Encashment salary to which petitioner is entitled for his (42) years qualifying service, together with interest @ 18% per annum from 01.07.2024 to till payment is made to the Petitioner... " 2- Heard Sri v. Jagapathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.l and 3. .,

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Housing Engineer (Assistant Engineer) in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Housing Board vide proceedings dated i

11.05.1982, and his services were duly regularized within the prescribed period and his probation was declared accordingly. subsequently, through a chain of .promotions, the petitioner was finally promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f., 13.08.2020. Thereafter, on L6.12.2023, {F CTL 2 PK, J W.P.No.9212 of 2025 respondent No.1 sent a letter, according permission for retirement of the petitioner upon his attaining the superannuation age of 61 years, which was accept.ed by respondent No.2, and consequential orders vide 1"t, G.o.Rt.No.342 dated L2.o3.2024, were issued, permitting the petitioner to retire from service. Pursuant tJrereto, petitioner accordingly retired from service on 30.06.2024, and he was directed to handover the charge of Superintending Engineer, Hyderabad Circle-Il, to one Mr. S. Srinivas, Executive Engineer, who was designated as Superintending Engineer, Hyderabad Circle-ll (FAC).

4. It is further submitted that in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.342 dated 12.O3.2024, the petitioner submitted his pension application to respondent No.3 herein on 30.03 .2024, in the prescribed proforma, along with a covering letter, requesting to process and sanction the service pension, retirement gratuity, and ot!,er retirement benefits. Tlrereafter, the said pension application was forwarded by the Chief Engineer to the Chief Accounts Officer, with an endorsement dated O2.O4.2O24. While all the other employees who retired along with the petitioner and later, were sanctioned''service pension, gratuity, and other benefits, the petitioner's case was kept pending without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the petitioner enquired about the same and was orally informed that the sanction of pension 3 PK, J W.P.No.9212 of 2025 application was under process and necessary orders would be issued soon. However, since no information was received from almost six months after his retirement, he submitted his detailed representation to respondent No.l on 23.o1.2o2s, requesting the sanction of pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits, for which he is entitled to for his (a2) years of unblemished service. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a reminder representation dated 24.02.2025, to respondent No.1, reiterating his request for the sanction of pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits. However, despite a lapse of almost eight months, the petitioner has not received a response from the respondent.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner has rendered more than $21 years of qualifying and unblemished service in the respondent Board, and no departmental proceedings were ever instituted.ragainst him during his services. As such, there is no valid reason for respondent No.1 to withhold/delay the sanction and payment of pension, commuted value of pension, and all other monetar5r benefits, including leave encashment salar5r, to which the petitioner is entitled. It is submitted that as per Rule 9(2)(bxii) of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 19g0, pension and- other retirement benefits may be withheld if the employee i departmental proceedings a t 4 PK, J W.P.No.9212 of 2025 instituted while in service. However, despite the petitioner never been subjected to any departmental proceedings as of his retirement date, i'e., 30.06.2o2s, the respondentshave illegaly withheld the petitioner's pension and other retirement benefits. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks indulgence of this court to direct the respondents to release the pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits of the petitioner as per his entitlement.

6. on the other hand, rearned Standing counser appearing for the respondents submits that a complaint was received from one Mr. Markande5rulu, alleging serious irregularities committed by the petitioner, during his tenure as Superintending Engineer. As such, in view of the said complaint, the respondent Board initiated preliminary investigation. However, on account of frequent transfer of the officers and also the change in Government, further action not be initiated against the petitioner, and meanwhile, he had retired from service on 30.06.2024. It is further submitted that thr: allegations in the complaint are grave in nature, and therefore, a show-cause notice dated 16.03.2025 was sent to the residential address of the petitioner through Registered post under consignment No.RNlsgrLT6T2]N, whichwas rel.urned undelivered with a postal endorsement 'unclaimed'. It is submitted that the enquiry will be taken up and rcourd / -) 5 PK, J W.P.No.9212 of 2025 concluded on top priority, as soon as an explanation is received from the petitioner, since the present case involves the public money. It is further submitted that the pension papers submitted by the petitioner were forwarded to the concerned higher authorities and the same is pending for necessary action/permissions. However, the delay, as alleged by the petitioner, is neither willful nor wanton, but is purely administrative in nature. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon verification through the official postal consignment portal, no details were found in respect of the aforesaid Rbgistered Post, alleged to have been sent by respondent No.1 to the petitioner, and it appears to be a false pretext to justify the deliberate delay in sanctioning the pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner, as per his lawful entitlement for his (a2) years of unblemished service. , It is further submitted that the aforesaid show-cause notice is ex facie fabricated with an ante-date, subsequent to the filing of present writ petition, allegedly basing on the complaint dated I3.O2.2O21, only to mislead this Court and to circumvent the release and payment of retirement benefits to the petitioner, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice. f{ --rrr 5 PK, J W.P.No.9212 of 2025 -{

8. Having regard to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the sole ground for not releasing/ withholding the retirement benefits of the petitioner, viz., pension, gratuity, encashment of earned leave, etc., is the pendency of action against the petitioner. According to the respondents, a show-cause notice dated 16.03.2025 was issued to the petitioner to the residential address of the petitioner, by respondent No.1. Ho,utrever, the petitioner has vehemently opposed the issuance and receipt of the said show- cause notice. Nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the basis for issuance of said show-cause notice is the complaint dated I3.O2.2O21, from one Mr. Markande5rulu, alleging serious irregularities by the petitioner. A perusal of the said complaint discloses that the alleged irregularity occurred whild the petitioner was discharging his services as Executive Engineer, Central Division. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer w.e.f.,

24.O2.2014, and as Superintending Engineer, w.e.[., 13.08.2018. Hence, it can be construed that the alleged incident pertains to a period prior to the year 2018. Here, it is apposite to refer to Rule 9(2)(bxii) of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which 2 7 PK, J W.P.No.9212 of 2025 governs the Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension. The following is an excerpt of the said Rule. "9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension: (2)(b) The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement of during his re-emplo5rment: (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution;" t t

9. Admittedly, the petitioner herein had retired from service in the cadre of Superintending Engineer on 30.06.2024, and as on the said date, no disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or pending against the petitioner. Moreover, the present show-cause notice was I I issued on 16.03.2025, basing on the complaint dated r3.o2.2o21, for the alleged incidents occurred prior to 2018. As such, in view of the aforesAid Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Telangana Revised pensjon Rules, this court is of dhe .considered opinion that the respondents ought not to have withheld/delayed the release and payment of retirement benehts to the petitioner. Further, the record reveals that the petitioner submitted his pension application on 30.03.2024, and no action was taken thereon despite a lapse of more than a year and a half, which is totally unjustihed. Therefore, this court deems it appropriate to grant him interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits. -.i I 8 PK, J W.P.No.9212 of 2O25

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to forthwith sanction and release the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner, as per his entitletnent, along with an interest of 10% per €rnnum from the date of retirement till the date of payment. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs. /rRUE coPY// SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER The vice - chairman and Housing commissioner' Telangana Housing Board' cirnltiFa Building, HYderabad' The secreta ry to c|;Liiti"tiiJia nsport, .Roqd_t-rnd io s1,,iltiriit, strt" of r"langana at Hvderabad' rd, G ru hakal pa B u i ld i ng, The chief a""o, nii*bmce r, rdta nd;;'fr g fil1"St31" o , FoR RoA_Dg_fND BUTLDTNGS, High court ror the state or rerangana at Hvi#o'q' 19.t1q .- :,::^:, ,.; b; ic io Snr uJncAFArHl. Advocate '[o-PUC] . . one cc to sR A.(ixiApiiAiGsn nno, Advocate [oPUc] . Two CD CoPies B u i ld i n g s ( H B ) Dept'' "".i " - '' -Boa \ To

4. 5 6 7 SA GJP HIGH COURT DATED i1211112025 ORDER WP.No.921 2 of 2425 (J 7 * I 1 F.H \5' t4 t' ,21 lfiI/- M , tr4 HTC f:O * ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. l1 l