Allowed

K.Varadarajulu v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Mar 2022WP/19785/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition directing the State to release the petitioner's withheld pension and retirement benefits. Holding that an appeal does not continue the original criminal proceedings, the judgment ruled that the acquittal was final for pension purposes under Rule 52, and the petitioner is entitled to said benefits with interest.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release all retiral benefits entitled by thePETitioner within six weeks and pay interest at 10% per annum from the date of acquittal until payment.

K.Varadarajulu Vs State of Ap — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19785 of 2021

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

Heard Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharlakota, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶5

Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for cooperation and perused the material on record.

¶6

The petitioner has filed this petition for the following relief:

¶7

“ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, order or orders declaring the action of the respondents authorities herein in not releasing petitioner’s pension and other retirement benefits as he was retired from service on 30.04.2012, consequent on his acquittal in Criminal case in C.C.No.276/2007 by judgment dt.05.02.2018, despite he made representation on 27.01.2021 to the 2^nd respondent herein as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and void and violated the principles of natural justice and affected his rights guaranteed under article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein to release the entire retirement benefits to the petitioner along with interest at 12% p.a, from 30.04.2012 till the payment made to the petitioner in terms of the Order dt.14.07.2021 in W.P.No.6474/2021 passed by this Hon’ble Court as well as reported judgment

¶8

¶9

in 2018(3) ALT 91 and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.”

¶10

The petitioner worked as a staff assistant in the respondent bank at Chittoor and retired on 30.04.2012 after attaining the age of superannuation. During the petitioner’s service period, some misappropriation of bank funds took place in which the petitioner along with others were issued a surcharge notice dated 02.09.2006 under Section 60 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 7 of 1964 and enquiry was conducted under Section 52 of the Act and finally the surcharge order was passed on 26.12.2006, thereby the petitioner was punished with withholding of the annual increments without cumulative effect. The responsibilities were also fixed on some other persons. The petitioner retired on 30.04.2012. Based on the surcharge proceedings, a criminal case bearing C.C.No.276 of 2007 was filed against the petitioner, in which finally by judgment dated 05.02.2018, the petitioner has been acquitted. The petitioner made a representation for release of his pension and other retirement benefits, but the same has yet not been released.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the petitioner’s acquittal, there is no justification for the authorities not to release the petitioner’s pension. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of B.V.Koteswar Rao v. State of Telangana¹ .

¶12

Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.02.2018 in C.C.No.276 of 2007, the respondent/petitioner has filed an appeal in CFR No.3810 of 2018 on the file of Principal 1 2018 (3) ALT 91

¶13

¶14

District and Sessions Court, Chittoor, which is pending and for that reason, the retirement benefits and pension etc., of the petitioner has not been settled. No other ground has been raised to justify nonrelease of the petitioner’s pension.

¶15

I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record.

¶16

In B.V.Koteswar Rao (supra), this Court following the Division Bench judgment of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration of Andhra Pradesh v. R.S.R. Rao² , has held that insofar as the criminal cases are concerned, the Department has got a right to file an appeal. But, it cannot be said that the judicial proceedings have not been concluded. Once the criminal court acquits that accused, it must amount to be the conclusion of the judicial proceedings in the first instance. Therefore, the appeals filed against the acquittal orders cannot be treated as continuation of criminal proceedings. It is apt to quote paragraphs 6 to 9 of this judgment in the case of B.V.Koteswara Rao (supra):

¶17

“6. As per Rule 52 of the Revised Pension Rules, pension and gratuity can be with held and only provisional pension can be paid, if departmental proceedings/ criminal proceedings were set in motion, while he was in service and are pending. However, once criminal proceedings end in acquittal, Rule 52 has no application and employee is entitled to release of pensionary benefits earlier withheld, pending criminal case. Mere filing of appeal against acquittal is no ground to deny the retirement benefits.

¶18

7. Principle of law is well settled on this issue. On due consideration of the relevant provisions of the Pension Rules in Chief Commissioner of Land Administration A.P., Vs R.S.R.Rao , the Division Bench held as under:

¶19

18. As per Rule 52 (1) (c) of the Pension Rules, the Government is empowered to withhold gratuity till the final orders are passed either in the departmental or judicial proceedings. Once final orders are passed, there is no provision that empowers the Government to withhold retirement benefits.

¶20

2 (1) 2010 (2) ALD 773 (DB)

¶21

¶22

19. The final orders, as indicated in Sub-rules (b) and (c) of Rule 52 (1) of the Pension Rules, are the orders to be passed by the Department upon conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings. Once the departmental proceedings end in favour of delinquent employee, there is no question of agitating the orders of the disciplinary authority by the Department itself. Therefore, the final orders are required to be passed for the purpose of payment of retirement benefits.

¶23

20. Insofar as the criminal cases are concerned, the Department has got a right to file an appeal. But, it cannot be said that the judicial proceedings have not been concluded. Once the criminal court acquits the accused, it must amount to be the conclusion of the judicial proceedings in the first instance. Therefore, the appeals filed against the acquittal orders cannot be treated as continuation of criminal proceedings.

¶24

21. If the appeal is not in continuation of original criminal proceedings, the order of acquittal is a final order within the ambit of Rule 52 of the Pension Rules, referred to above. After the orders of acquittal passed by the criminal court, as already stated above, there is no power for the Government to withhold pension or retirement benefits. The said benefits, therefore, are liable to be paid immediately after acquittal order.

¶25

22. If the appeal or revision proceedings are in continuation of the criminal proceedings, there will be no end for the litigation and the employees, who have been acquitted honourably, shall not get retirement benefits till conclusion of all appeals, revisions, special leave petitions etc. Appeal against acquittal, not being continuation of original criminal proceedings, Rule 52 as above, will not be available to Government for withholding retirement benefits.(emphasis supplied)

¶26

8. It is also interesting to note order of Government impugned is bereft of reasons, though it runs into 16 paragraphs. In all previous paragraphs up to Paragraph No.15, it is only narration of events that took place and in Paragraph No.15 it only indicates the decision not to grant gratuity and full pension, since criminal appeal is pending at the S.R. stage.

¶27

9. The rule as interpreted by the Division Bench is clear and the decision of the Division Bench holding the field, it is no more open for the Government to reject request to grant retirement benefits on the very ground that criminal appeal is pending. Even in the counter affidavit no other reason is assigned except referring to pending criminal appeal. There was no application of mind. No discussion on statutory environment and precedent decision operating the field. The attitude and approach of the authorities is highly deprecated. Due to illegal denial of retirement benefits, employee and his family is subjected to suffering and hardship for more than three years.”

¶28

¶29

In the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner has been acquitted of the Criminal Case by the trial Court on 05.02.2018. The petitioner has also been punished with withholding of annual increments without cumulative effect in the proceedings for surcharge.

¶30

The petitioner having been acquitted, the pendency of the criminal appeal at the instance of the respondents cannot be a ground not to release the pensioner’s pension or retirement benefits, in as much as, it cannot be said that any disciplinary or judicial proceeding is pending against the petitioner. There is no justification on the part of the respondents not to release the petitioner’s retiral benefits.

¶31

In B.V.Koteswar Rao (supra), this Court directed to release all the retiral benefits to which the petitioner therein was entitled along with interest @ 10% p.a., from the date of acquittal granted by the Criminal Court till the date of payment.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release all the retiral benefits to which the petitioner is entitled as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is entitled to interest @ 10% from the date of acquittal by the Criminal Court till date of payment.

¶33

No order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

¶35

shall also stand closed.

¶36

__________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J

¶37

Date: 14.03.2022

¶38

SCS/CHDbB/BBB