G.S.PRASADA RAO v. violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI A V V S N MURTHY SC FOR TGSSDCL The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA II/RIT PETITION No.1OO47 of 201O ORDER: This u.rit pctition is filed by the petitioner lcquesting the Court to declare the action of the respondent in passing the impugned Order dated 30.O 1.2010, rejecting the claim of the petitioner to grant interest @ lSoh per annum on the terminal/retirement benefits of Gratuity and leave encashment of Rs.4,35,388.30/ - lor the period from 01.04.2004 to

10.09.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articlcs 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is present and learned Counsel for the respondent is absent.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner joined in the respondent Corporation as Senior Seed Officer during the year 1978 and hc was promoted as Regional Manager/Manager during the year 1982. He was issued with a Charge Merno uide Memo No.SSDC/Adrnn/2O01 O2, dated

09.09.2001 by the respondent Corporation for certain alleged irregularities pertaining to the year 1997. Petitioner had submitted his explanation on O7. 1 1 .2001 and Departmental 2 enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Ofhcer submitted the Enquiry report on 17.O5.2OO5, holding that the charges held not proved. Similarly, another Charge Memo No.SSDC /Adrnnl2OO2- 03, dated 28.12.2OO2, was issued by the respondent against the petitioner for the irregularities took place in suppiy of Sunflower seed on 507o subsidy during the year 1997-98. Petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation on 17 .Ol .2OO3 and a Departmental Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer had also submitted report on 27 .IO.2OO5 by holding that alleged charges were not proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary authority issued a Memo No.SSDC/Admnl2OO6lO7, daLed

08.OI.2OO7 i.e., after two years, by disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and directed the petitioner to submit representation, as such pelitioner submitted a representation or 25.O1 .2OO7 .

4. During the pendency of the above alleged charges, petitioner attained the age of superannuation and he was relieved from service on 31.O3.2004, but even after the retirement, pensionary bene{its i.e., Gratuit5r and leave encashment were not released by the respondent Corporation, as such petitioner made several representations. Finally, uide proceedings No.SSDC/A/16/2OOA-O9, dated 08.09.2008, . *,Eai---?:|ryu. , :,.": ,''. I t I I I i I J respondent Corporalion dropped the charges against the petitioner and released the Gratuity and leavc encashment benefits to the tune of Rs.4,35,38S.30/ -, but u,ithout interest. Therefore, petitioner made a representation to the respondent Corporation on 16.02.2009 and also on 11.O1.20 I0, requesting to grant interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of Rs.4,35,388.30/ -. On that, respondent Corporalion has passed impugned Order dated 30.0 I .2O 1 O No.SSDC/Admn.l2OO9-|O 1299, and srated that as per G.O.Rt.No.1O34, Fin. &Plg. (FW Pen.t) Deparlment, doted

09.06.2000, any indiuiduol is eligible for interest _from the date of JinaL orders only. In Aour cose, the Jinal orders uere issued. on O8.09.2OO8 and terminal benefits uere paid on 1 1.O9.2008. Hence, you are not eligible for ang interest or.L the tenninal benefits. Aggrieved by the said impugned Order, the present writ petition is preferred. 5- In the counter filed by the General Manager (Admn.), APSSDC Ltd, Hyderabad, he stated that irregularities were reported during the physical verification of records in dislribution of Sunflower seeds under subsidy ir.r the Warangal District during the year lggT-ga. Disciplinarl. action was initiated against the petitioner and seven other employees of 4 APSSDC Ltd., by issuing Charge Memos on 28. l2.2OO2 and Enquiry Officer was appointed on 23 .O3 .2OO3. In the meanwhile, petitioner was retired on 31.O3.2004. The petitioner was paid EPF amount of Rs.6,O2,O41/_, but payment of gratuilv and leave encashment benefits were with held as enquiry was not completed. The Enquiry Ofhcer submitted his report on

27.1O.2OO5, stating that charges made against thc petitioner were not proved. Considering the explanation of the petitioner dated 25.01.2OO7, the charges were dropped against him and other benefrts could not be paid as he was not the only person and there were seven other employees facing disciplinary action. After passing the orders on Og.O9.20Og, he was paid the terminal benefits of gratuity and leave encashment to the tune of Rs.4,38,388 /- on l I.O9.2O0g, as such there was no delay on the part of the Corporation in payment of terminal benefits and requested the Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court dated 2t.O8.2O24 in W.p.No.1960 of 2018, in which it was held as follows: '8. The leorned Singte Judge of this Court in W.p.No.4845 of 2O19, leld as follou_ts: 5 "A Diuision Bench of the High Court of Judicature ot Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the Stote of Andhra Pradesh, ho's passed a common order dated 15.1 1.2018, in W.P.Nos.25587, 2631 I and 26381 of 2O18, bg relying on the Judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Shri Kishna Pandey, uherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, uLhile dealing uith initiation of a depatlmental enquiry against the respondent therein after his retiremerlt from seruice, obserued that cts in RuIe 9 (2)(b)(il.) of the Rules of 1980, Regulation 351-A of the Ciuil Seruices Regtiations, tuhich uas under consideration, prouided thot deparlmental proceedings, if not instituted before retirement, shall not be instituted in respect of an euen uthich took place more thon four gears before such institution, as in Rule 9 (6) of the Rules of 1980, the Explanotion to Regulation 351-A prouide-d that depanlmental proceedings shall be deemed to haue been instituted uthen the charges framed against the pensioner uere issued to him or from the date of his being placed under suspension, if applicabLe. Utinalely the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that depanlmental proceedings must be instituted before topse of four gears from the date on which tlrc euent of misconduct had taken place."

9. This CotLrt is not inclined to take a differenr uieut. In uieut of the aboue facts, impugned Charge Memo dated 24.O7.2O18, is liable to be quashed. 10. Writ petition is allowed, quashing the impugned Charge Memo dated 24.07.2018 issued. Tlrc respondents are directed to ftx 2 5o/o pension pagable to the petitioner and pag the same and gratuity and other retirement beneftts to the petitioner together with interest ,@ 9% per annum from the date theg become due till the date of paAmenl. There shall be no ord.er os to cosrs. " 6

7. The writ petitioner herein mainly rcqucsLed for interest on the gratuity amount and leave encashment amount paid to him with delay. Whereas, respondent contendcd that in vier.r, of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings on seven other employees, they could not finalize the enquiry, as such thcre is delay in payment. The reasons stated by the respondent Corporation are neither convincing nor satisfactory and moreover the enquiry was initiated and charges werc framed in the years 2001 and 2002, but the enquiry rvas finalized and orders to release retirement benefits was passed in the year 2008 and the petitioner cannot be penalized for Lhe finalization of the enquiry. In fact, petitioner was retired during the pendency of the enquiry, as such the contention of thc respondent Corporation cannot be accepted and they are directed to pay the interest @ 9Vo per annum on the amount of Rs.4,35,388.30/- from Ot.O4.2OO4 to i0.09.2008 wirhin one month from the date of this Order i.e., on or bcfore 21.04.2lJ25, failing which they are liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 7.5% per annum from 21.04.2025 to till the dare of realization. 8 In the result, the present writ petition is allowed directing the respondent to pay the interest @ 9o/o per annum on the I 1 I ! l I i I i l Ii I I I .r ,.b'-5E {.7-=..Si.- , &'.'' -,- ijr'*t -i/ ' 7 amount of Rs.4,35,388.30/- from Ol.O4.2OO4 Lo 10.09.2008 rvithin one month from the date of this Order i.c.. on or before 2l .O4.2O25, lailing which they are liable to pay interest on the said amount (A 7 .5o/o per annum from 21-.O4.2025 Lo till the date of realization. Misccllancous petitions pending, if anv, shall stand closcd. That Rule Nisi has been 'ma{9' w i tn e s s,?"-:;$ ? ; ji ; ff [l'": :f i;:'i."# :B"'iltt il ;f?ili' r'iu "v'rn" and And TwentY Five /TTRUE COPY'/ n I I OPAL TRAR SD/- N.RAJAG DEPUTY REGIS \ ''sE"TloN oFFtcER To, 1 2 .l llIYa?St%^'lilt3,'IRJiti?J"".1ft One CC to SRI P S P SURESH KUMAR Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI A V V S N MURTHY SC FOR TGSSDCL [OPUCI !;:fi::S33"B'"veropment

4. Two CD CoPies KKS PSK / d ( HIGH COURT DATED:2110312025 R IHE sLl i{! o ( :\ o 2 7 JUl.l 2ff25 D / ,._7 ORDER WP.No.10047 of 2010 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I ! I I