Allowed

K.v.Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Feb 2024WP/40279/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief for delayed pensionary benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment, following his reinstatement and subsequent non-payment by the employer. The court held the benefits were a valuable right and ordered payment with interest under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay retirement benefits (gratuity, leave encashment, final salary) with applicable interest and costs of Rs. 25,000.

K.v.Reddy Vs Andhra Pradesh State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 40279 OF 2012

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.V.Reddy, S/o.K.Pitchai Reddy, Age 58 years, Occ: retired controller of unit, APSRTC, Ongole, E.No.095365, Prakasam District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

¶12

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ongole, Prakasam District

¶13

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ongole Depot, Prakasam District

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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, order or driection more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying petitioner pensionary benefits such as gratuity, leave encashement and final salary etc after petitioner retirement on 31.8.2012 as illegal arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and contrary of the Rules of Pension and

¶16

also amounts to violation of Principles of natural justice and also Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay petitioner pensionary benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment and final salary etc with all consequential benefits along with permissible interest.

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 51112 OF 20121

¶18

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 direct the respondents to pay petitioner pensionary^benefitssuch as gratuity, leave encashment and final salary etc with all consequential benefits along with interest pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M PITCHAIAH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI DANDA RADHIKA (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.40279 OF 2012

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:

¶26

“ pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying petitioner’s pensionary benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment and final salary etc after his retirement on 31.08.2012 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to the Rules of Pension and also amounts to violation of Principles of natural justice and also Art.21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay his pensionary benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment and final salary etc with all consequential benefits along with permissible interest and to pass.... 2. The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the^action of the respondents in not paying the pensionary benefits^such as gratuity, leave encashment and final salary etc., though the petitioner was retired on 31.08.2012.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was terminated from service and aggrieved by the termination order passed by the employer, the petitioner herein approached the Labour Court vide I.D. No. 159^of2004

¶29

and the same was allowed and directed the respondents/employer to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service.

¶30

Aggrieved by the said Order dated 14.07.2005 in I.D. No. 159 of 2004, the employer has filed the Writ Petition before this Court while at Hyderabad vide W.P. No.^13445of 2006 and pending disposal of the same, the respondent corporation has arranged payment of retirement benefit to the workman up to the date of removal.

¶31

As seen from the counter, the respondents have paid the retirement benefits to the workman up to the date of removal and stated that remaining will be paid soon^afterthe result of the Writ Petition No. 13445 of 2006.

¶32

The petitioner removed from service on 11.06.2004. As per the counter, till today they have not paid the^retiremental benefits to the workman who is the petitioner herein.

¶33

¶34

The retirement benefit is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government/employer^andthat on the other hand the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar h

¶35

The only impediment for payment of retiremental benefits is when there are disciplinary or criminal proceedings pending against any delinquent or employee. In the present case, there are no disciplinary or criminal^cases pending against the petitioner herein who removed from^the service and later reinstated into service as per the^orderin I.D. No. 159 of 2004 by passed by the Labour Court.

¶36

Aggrieved by the said order, the employer has filed^Writ Petition before this Court and the same was dismissed and the order in I.D.No. 159 of 2004 was affirmed. Therefore,^the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for^asthereare no proceedings pending against him either in criminal or disciplinary proceedings and the prayer in the Writ^Petitionis not a vague prayer or omnibus prayer. Relief prayed is specifically for a direction for payment of retiremental

1 1971 (2) see 330

V-. ^

benefits and in the counter they have admitted that^theyhave paid the retiremental benefits, up to the date of removal^from the service of the petitioner i.e. 11.06.2004.

¶41

The respondents have categorically admitted that the petitioner is entitled for the retiremental benefits and the same will be paid after disposal of the Writ Petition filed^by the respondent authorities. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 19.11.2015. Despite seven years, the

¶42

re spondents have not paid the retiremental benefits though they have admitted that the petitioner is entitled for the retiremental benefits.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner is also pleaded^that the petitioner is entitled for the interest on the gratuity amount under Sub-Section (3A) of Section 7 of Payment^of Gratuity Act, 1972, which is extracted for the benefit and appreciation. “(3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under sub section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate

¶44

¶45

notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify:”

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also contended that as per the notification issued by the^Central Government, the petitioner is entitled a simple interest @ 10% specified vide S.O. 874 (C) dated 01.10.1987.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also placed reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme^Court in Y.K. Singla v. Punjab National Bank and others^ for the entitlement of interest.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the petitioner is not entitled to any^interest as the payment was delayed due to the removal from service.

¶49

On repetition, the petitioner was terminated from service and he was reinstated into service by the Labour

¶50

Court. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the respondent/employer filed writ petition and the same was dismissed. Therefore, it alludes that there is no fault on the part of the employee. Therefore, this Court holds that the

2 2013 (3) see 472

petitioner is entitled for interest under Sub-Section (3A) of Section 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act. There is no such omnibus relief prayed in the present Writ Petition and the relief is quite clear.

¶56

Hence, the present Writ Petition is allowed directing^the respondents herein to pay retiremental benefits to the petitioner which he is entitled to, if not otherwise paid, with interest specified and as noted above.

¶57

As the respondents have not paid retiremental benefits even after dismissal of the Writ Petition filed by the employer, the present Writ Petition is allowed with cost of Rs.25,000/-

¶58

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶59

To.

¶60

SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI assistant REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// k SECTION OFFICER

¶61