Sri.Muthanna Goud Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dated 16.05.2024 and the inaction of the respondents herein in releasing the pension and Pensionary and Retirement benefits payable to the Petitioner herein purportedly under the ground of bigamy without considering the dissolution of the Petitioners 1st marriage as per customary practices prevailing in the Petitioners Panchamasale Lingayat Caste as wholly arbitrary illegal contrary to A P Civil Services Conduct Rules 1964 besides being violative of the Petitioners rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to release the pension payable to the petitioner and his retirement and pensionary benefits with all its arrears for the least four years to enable the petitioner to lead dignified life and/of pass such other orders.

¶28

A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition discloses that there are certain disputes between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent and based on the representation made by the 5^th respondent, 3^rd respondent has issued memo dated 16.05.2024 stating that as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 19.05.2024 for second marriage when the first wife-5^th respondent is living and filed a suit O.S.No.34 of 2020 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gangavathi against the 3^rd respondent herein seeking permanent injunction from disbursing the arrears and retirement benefits of the petitioner herein.

¶29

3

¶30

As the 5^th respondent has already approached the competent civil court by filing a suit O.S.No.34 of 2020 and the said suit was dismissed on 05.04.2024 with following observations:

¶31

<That, the plaintiff even after imposing the cost has not appeared before the court to lead evidence. Hence, it appears that, plaintiff is not interested to proceed with the case. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is deserves to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed for non-prosecution.=

¶32

When the competent civil court has dismissed the suit filed by the 5^th respondent, the respondent ought not to have withheld the pensionary benefits based on the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated on the complaint made by the 5^th respondent.

¶33

In reply, issuing a charge memo dated 19.05.2020, the respondents 1 to 4 have not proceeded with the enquiry and the suit filed by the 5^th respondent has also dismissed for non prosecution. In the said circumstances, the respondents 1 to 4 ought not to have withheld the pensionary benefits and which is contrary to Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.

¶34

Reply to the said contention, learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent has submitted that after dismissal of the suit, 5^th respondent has also initiated proceedings for restoration of the suit and she is pursuing the same.

¶35

4

¶36

Considering the said submission made by the counsels and as per the averments made in the writ petition and also perusal of the record reveal that the 5^th respondent has filed suit and the said suit was dismissed and there is no evidence or declaration by any authority or court, hence, the respondents ought not to have withheld the pensionary benefits contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 4 to release the pensionary benefits forthwith to the petitioner. If the 5^th respondent is able to prove in the pending suit and if it is restored or decreed in favour of the

¶38