Allowed

Sk. Ahmed Basha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026WP/26618/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Assistant Engineer filed a writ petition seeking release of pensionary benefits and quashing of a charge memo dated 17.12.2021. The departmental enquiry had not concluded despite the petitioner's superannuation on 30.06.2026. The High Court directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within three months; failing which, full retirement benefits must be released. In the interim, provisional pension under G.O.Rt.No.1097/2000 was ordered.

What did the court decide?

Disciplinary proceedings to be concluded within three months; failing which, full retirement benefits to be released. Interim provisional pension under G.O.Rt.No.1097/2000 to be paid. Disciplinary authority, enquiry officer and presenting officer personally answerable for delay.

Sk. Ahmed Basha Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010488012026

¶2

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

¶3

[3460]

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 26618/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

SK. AHMED BASHA, S/O. LATE MR. KALESHA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC RETIRED ASST. ENGINEER (R B), SECTION KALIGIRI, R/O. SRI SAINAGAR LAYOUT-1, PLOT NO. 31 2ND LINE D.NO.16-16490/31, BALIJAPALEM REVENUE, WARD NO. 16-IV, NELLORE VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT524002.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI.522237

¶13

THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF ADMN, DEPARTMENT OF ROADS AND BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA.520001.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 topleased to issue Writ, Order or

¶16

¶17

Direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to draw his pension and pensionary benefits upon his retirement on superannuation on 30.06.2026 as Asst. Engineer (R B) (Subdivision) Kaligiri, SPSR Nellore District, State of Andhra Pradesh by quashing the charge Memo No.TRB02-ADMN/41/2021-VIG SEC-RB ADMIN (Cmp.No.1460413)-2, dated 17.12.2021 being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of Indian, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to grant the all the pensionary benefits and retirement benefits including special grade increment to the petition under the Old Pension Scheme

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to pay the provisional pension of 75% of the total pension to the petitioner, pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.T LAKSHMI NARAYANA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶27

W.P.No.26618 of 2026

¶28

O R D E R:

¶29

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the Respondent-Authorities to enable the Petitioner to draw his pension and pensionary benefits upon his retirement on superannuation (30.06.2026) as Assistant Engineer (R&B) (Sub-Division), Kaligiri, SPSR Nellore District, and to quash the charge memo No.TRB02-ADMN/41/2021-VIGSECRBADMIN(Cmp.No.1460413)-2, dated 17.12.2021.

¶30

The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Work Inspector (Grade-IV) on 10.02.1989 in the Roads and Buildings Department. Subsequently, in the year 2014, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer. While so, when the Petitioner was working at Kandukur Station in Prakasam District, in the year 2021, a charge memo vide No.TRB02-ADMN/41/2021VIGSEC-RBADMIN(Cmp.No.1460413)-2, dated 17.12.2021, was issued to the Petitioner, alleging that he had invited offline tenders and entrusted the works in a fraudulent manner. In the course of time, the Petitioner retired from service on

¶31

¶32

30.06.2026, on attaining the age of superannuation. As no steps were taken by the Respondent-Authorities for conclusion of the departmental enquiry and release of pension, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Government has provided timeline for concluding departmental enquiries specifically three months in case of simple cases and six months in case of complex cases in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2009 read with G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022 and Respondents were not adhering to the aforesaid timelines in concluding the enquiry. During the course of argument, learned counsel restricted his argument for expeditious conclusion of the departmental proceedings and retirement benefits.

¶34

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Respondents on the other hand submits that enquiry would be concluded as expeditiously as possible.

¶35

¶36

Having heard the respective counsel and taking note of the fact that there is no progress in the departmental enquiry contrary to the time frame as fixed vide G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, with the following directions:-

¶37

(i) The Respondents are directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

(ii) In the event, the departmental enquiry is not concluded within the time specified, the Respondents shall release the retirement benefits in entirety to the Petitioner without further reference to the orders of this Court.

¶39

(iii) The disciplinary authority as well as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer shall be personally answerable, in the event enquiry is not concluded within the time frame referred above.

¶40

¶41

(iv) In the interregnum, the Respondents shall

¶42

take steps to pay the retirement benefits to the Petitioner as provided under G.O.Rt.No.1097, Finance & Planning (FE.Pen-I), dated 22-062000.

¶43

(v) No order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶46

Date: 17.09.2026 chs

¶47

¶48

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶49

179

¶50

W.P.No.26618 of 2026

¶51

Date: 17.09.2026

¶52

chs

Sk. Ahmed Basha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk. Ahmed Basha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases