Partly allowed

G Narasinga Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2024WP/18599/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired employee, filed a writ petition seeking the release of withheld retirement benefits due to alleged arbitrary actions and paucity of funds. The High Court disposed of the writ petition at the stage of admission, directing respondents to pay the claimed amounts within 12 weeks along with statutory interest.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay the claimed retirement benefits within 12 weeks along with interest.

G Narasinga Rao Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH;:AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 18599 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

G.Narasinga Rao, S/o.Late Pentayya, Aged about 61 years, Occ Retired Assistant Engineer R/o.Devangula Street, Fazulbegpeta Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, Pincode 532005.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary,^Government of General Administration Department (GAD), Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Finance and Planning, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶13

The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation (APEWIDC), Vaddeswaram, Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶14

The Commissioner, Department of School Education, Sri Anjaneya Towers, Ibrahim Patnam, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶15

The Executive Engineer, APEWIDC Division, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents not releasing the Retirement benefits with a totaling of Rs.26,74,351/i.e 1.Retirement Gratuity of Rs. 16,00,000/- and 2.Encashment of Leave Salary of Rs. 10,74,351/-, withholding the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay Retirement Gratuity, Earned Leave^{Encashmentand} pending arrears of salary, along with 9% interest on the delayed Retirement benefits in terms of well settled law of the Honble Apex Court of India reported in (2022) 4 SCC 627, and W.A.No.383 of 2022, dated 12.07.2022, immediately to the petitioner.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

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 may please to direct the respondents to release^{alltheRetirement} benefits with a totaling of Rs.26,74,351/- i.e., 1.Retirement Gratuity of Rs. 16,00,000/- and 2.Encashment of Leave Salary of Rs. 10,74,351/- along

¶20

with pending arrears of Salary to till date of retirement immediately, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BATHALA RAMESH

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 5: GP FOR SCHOOL^EDUCATION

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR SERVICES III

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 6: SRI V.CH.NAIDU (SC FOR

¶26

APEWIDE)

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

APHC010363572024

¶29

f (

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶31

[3331]

¶32

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶33

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO: 18599/2024

Between:

G Narasinga Rao

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶43

BATHALA RAMESH

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶45

1.GP FOR SERVICES III 2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶46

The Court made the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief;

¶49

“...to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate^{writordirection} declaring the action of the Respondents not releasing^{theRetirement} benefits with a totaling of Rs.26,74,351/- i.e 1.Retirement^{GratuityofRs.} 16,00,000/and 2.Encashment of Leave Salary of Rs.10,74,351/-, withholding the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation^{ofArticle21and} 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay Retirement Gratuity, Earned Leave^{Encashmentand} pending arrears of salary, along with 9 percent interest^onthedelayed Retirement benefits in terms of well settled law of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India reported in (2022) 4 SCC 627, and W.A.No.383^of2022, dated 12.07.2022, immediately to the petitioner...”

¶50

Page 2 of 2

¶51

Heard Sri Bathala Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner^and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for Respondents 1 to 3 & 5 and Sri V.Ch.Naidu, learned standing counsel for respondents 4 & 6.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.^Hewould also submit that, even though no departmental proceedings are pending, retirement benefits are not being released to the petitioner.

¶53

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that no departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner. They would submit that, due to paucity of funds, the amount was not released to the petitioner. They would submit that the amount will be paid to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

¶54

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, with the following directions:

¶55

i) Respondents shall clear all the amounts claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition within twelve (12) weeks by following Rules from the date of receipt of the copy of this order; and

¶56

ii) Respondents shall also pay interest to the petitioner for the delayed payments as per settled law.

¶57

iii) No order as to costs.

¶58

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

¶61

To, 1. The Chief Secretary, Government of General Administration Department (GAD), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶62

The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶63

The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance and Planning, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶64

The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation (APEWIDC), Vaddeswaram, Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶65

The Commissioner, Department of School Education, Sri Anjaneya Towers, Ibrahim Patnam, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶66

The Executive Engineer, APEWIDC Division, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.

¶67

One CC to SRI BATHALA RAMESH, Advocate [OPUC]

¶68

8- l^vo^CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶69

Two CCs to GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶70

"18FOR SERVICES III, High Court of Andhra Pradesh

¶71

One CC to SRI V.CH.NAIDU (SC FOR APEWIDC) Advocate [OPUC] 12. Two C.D Copies MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED;10/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.18599 of 2024

O
;/0
; "5 0 1 OCT 202'« rn
i\o Col
Curreni S*

¶79

ALLOWING THE W.P

¶80

WITHOUT COSTS

G Narasinga Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Narasinga Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yaddanapudi Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bellamkonda Dinesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G Vedavalli Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Presingu Khadar Mastan, Vs Andhra Pradesh Housing Board

Sri. Arveti Sai Pratap, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B Jaya Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh