Dismissed

B Sai Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026WP/20743/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition regarding the rejection of 80% retirement gratuity due to pendency of a corruption FIR, dismissed the petition. The Court relied on a Division Bench judgment ruling that the proviso allowing 80% gratuity release applies only to disciplinary proceedings, not judicial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Pergrutuity claim rejected; no relief granted on the prayer; W.P. dismissed with no order as to costs.

B Sai Kumar Vs the State of Andhra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3460]

¶2

APHC010324042025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 20743/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

B SAI KUMAR, S/O VEERA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. RETIRED ARCHTECETURAL DRAFTSMEN,(AADM), AP CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (APCRDA), HEAD OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, R/O 21-11-71/3, RAILWAY SOCIETY ROAD, MADHURANAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, 520011.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY IT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (VIG IV. 2) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, ANDHRA PRADESH CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CRDA), VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Endorsement issued by the 2nd Respondent dated

¶17

¶18

18.3.2025 rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for sanction of 80percent retirement Gratuity under the guise of pendency of FIR 27/RCA-ACB/VJA/2015, dated 26-11-2015, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption of AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980 as Illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the G.O.Rt. No. 1097, Finance and Planning (FW-Pen-1) Department, dated 22-6-2000 and Rule 52 (1)(c) 2 Proviso of AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to release the 80percent Retirement Gratuity of the Petitioner in terms of G.O.Rt. No. 1097, Finance and Planning (FW-Pen-l) Department, dated 22-6-2000 and Rule 52 (1)(c) 2nd Proviso of AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and on the same analogy of similar orders passed in WP. No. 2545 /2020, W.P. No. 6050/2021 and W.P. No. 33884/2022 and to pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 pleased to direct the Respondents to release 80% Retirement Gratuity of the Petitioner pending FIR No. 27/RCA-ACB/VJA/2015, dated 26-11-2015, in terms of G.O.Rt. No. 1097, Finance & Planning (FW-Pen-1) Department, dated 22-6-2000 on the same analogy of similar orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in WP. No. 2545 /2020, W.P. No. 6050/2021 and W.P. No. 33884/2022 pending disposal of the writ Petition and to pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.A SREEDHAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶25

2.S PRANATHI

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶29

W.P.No.20743 of 2025

¶30

O R D E R:

¶31

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned endorsement dated 18.03.2025, issued by Respondent No.2, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for sanction of 80% retirement gratuity due to the pendency of FIR No.27/RCA-ACB/VJA/2015, dated 26.11.2015, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶32

The facts in brief are as follows:-

¶33

The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) had registered a criminal case under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while the Petitioner was working as Architectural Draftsman in A.P CRDA. Pursuant thereto, a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.25 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada. In course of time, the Petitioner had retired from his service on 31.05.2024. In the present case, the Petitioner seeks release of 80% retirement gratuity as contemplated under G.O.Rt.No.1097, Finance and Planning (FE.Pen.I) Department, dated 22.06.2000. Hence, the Writ Petition is filed.

¶34

¶35

Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that Rule 52 (1) (c) of AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980, prohibits the payment of gratuity benefits pending the criminal case and that the said issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.196 of 2022, dated 16.02.2022 and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief.

¶36

Heard the counsels.

¶37

The Rule 52 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and G.O.Rt.No.1097, dated 22.06.2000 were considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.196 of 2022 vis-a-vis persons facing criminal case and held that they are not entitled for gratuity pending criminal case. The paragraphs Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the said Judgment are as follows:

¶38

“8. Extending the import of proviso to clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.1097 dated 22.06.2000. The relevant part of the G.O.Rt.No.1097 is extracted hereunder: “C. Retirement Gratuity: According to clause(c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, no Gratuity shall be paid until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue the final orders. According to the proviso to the above said Rule, where Departmental Proceedings have been instituted under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 9 of the said Rules, except the cases falling under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the said Rules, the payment of Gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the Government Servant. It is also further provided in the said Rule that where a conclusion has been reached that a portion of pension only should be withheld or withdrawn and the Retirement Gratuity remains unaffected in the

¶39

¶40

contemplated final orders, the Retirement Gratuity can be released upto 80% of the eligible Retirement Gratuity.”

¶41

9. A joint reading of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Section 52 of the Rules, 1980 along with G.O.Rt.No.1097 dated 22.06.2000 would make it clear that the proviso appended to clause (c) concerns a situation where the retired Government Servant is undergoing departmental proceedings. The proviso does not deal with a situation where the retired Government Servant is facing judicial proceedings. While the first part of clause(c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980 provides that no gratuity shall be paid until the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings or issue of the final orders, the proviso enables the Government to release 80% of the eligible gratuity in appropriate cases, where the retired Government Servant is facing the disciplinary proceedings. However, the said enabling proviso has not dealt with a situation where the retired Government Servant is facing judicial proceedings.

¶42

10. The case decided by the Division Bench of common High Court in W.P. No.30443 of 2016 was dealing with the prayer of a retired Government Servant for release of leave encashment. It was not dealing with the prayer for release of 80% of gratuity. The judgment in the matter of R. Veerabhadram vs. Government of A.P. reported in (1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 43 referred by the learned single Judge clearly holds that by virtue of Rule 52(c) of the Rules, 1980, there is an express power empowering the Government to withhold gratuity during the pendency of any judicial proceedings against the employee. Even though the said judgment was rendered before issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1097, the fact remains that there is no amendment in the main part of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980. As we have mentioned earlier, the proviso only concerns a situation where the employee is facing disciplinary proceedings and not when he is facing judicial proceedings. In our considered view, the judgment in the case of R.Veerabhadram (supra) would still hold in a case where the employee is facing judicial proceedings.

¶43