B v v Ramana Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B V V RAMANA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED GROUND LEVEL RESERVOIR OPERATOR, HUKUMPET GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT R/O 2-3, HUKUMPET POST, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF A.P. TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PR WING, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

2

W.P.No.29216 of 2024

DR, J

THE DISTRICT GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶21

THE DIVISIONAL PANCHYAT OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶22

THE HUKUMPETA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY TIS PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, HUKUMPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.M R TAGORE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶28

2.G SRINIVASULA REDDY (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GP SERVICES)

¶29

The Court made the following:

3

DR, J

W.P.No.29216 of 2024

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.29216 of 2024

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly the 4^th respondent, in rejecting the petitioner‟s claim for pension and other retiremental benefits vide impugned order dated 19.06.2024, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶38

The petitioner was appointed as Ground Level Reservoir Operator (GLR) on 01.04.1981. Subsequently, the District Panchayat Officer, vide proceedings dated 03.08.1994, granted the petitioner time scale by converting the post of GLR Operator into L.G.S. post with effect from 01.07.1994. Later, the District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari, Kakinada vide his proceedings dated 12.12.2012 has regularized the services of the petitioner with effect from 30.06.1996. The case of the petitioner was considered and granted special grade post, special adhoc promotion post scale-1A and SAPP-1B on completion of 8/12 and 18 years of service and accordingly, payments were released.

4

W.P.No.29216 of 2024

DR, J

While things stood thus, surprisingly, behind back of the petitioner, the Divisional Panchayat Officer has submitted a report on 09.03.2017 and based on the said report, the respondents have issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 12.05.2017 and the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 29.05.2017. Without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, „the CCA Rules‟), the respondents have issued termination orders on 07.07.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development. The said appeal has been rejected vide its orders dated 11.01.2021.

¶43

Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8642 of 2021 before this Court. After elaborate discussion and on perusal of Rules 20 and 21 of the CCA Rules, a learned Judge of this Court has disposed of the same with the following directions:

¶44

“20. The other contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Authorities followed procedure and issued show cause notice and also received explanation from the petitioner and passed impugned proceedings of termination

5

DR, J

W.P.No.29216 of 2024

since the petitioner is not a regular employee, the rule 20 and 21 of CCA rules are not applicable to the petitioner, is untenable and erroneous in view of the series of proceedings issued by the respondents and continuation of the services of the petitioner as last grade regular employee since 1991.

¶49

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances as stated above and in view of the foregoing discussion as mentioned above, the present Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned removal order dated 07.07.2017 and also, order in appeal dated 11.01.2021 and petitioner is entitled to all the consequential monetary benefits to the post of petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.”

¶50

Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents preferred W.A.No.586 of 2023. A Division Bench of this Court has considered and disposed of the writ appeal with the following observations:

¶51

“5. Considering the submissions made, this Court is of the opinion that writ appeal should be allowed setting aside the order of the learned single Judge but with a condition is that the order of termination is illegal. The writ petitioner has to be reinstated into service with all benefits. It is left open to the respondents to take action as warranted under law.”

6

W.P.No.29216 of 2024

DR, J

Finally, the respondents have also approached the Hon‟ble Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, which was numbered as SLP (Civil) Diary No.8756 of 2024. Vide order dated 07.03.2024 the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the respondents have issued proceedings dated 26.03.2024 implementing the orders of this Court in W.P.No.8642 of 2021 dated 14.12.2022 and released all consequential monetary benefits. During the pendency of the litigation, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired from service on 30.04.2021. In the said circumstances, as directed by this Court in W.P.No.8642 of 2021, the petitioner is entitled to all consequential monetary benefits, including pensionary benefits. However, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.586 of 2023 while disposing of the writ appeal has granted liberty to the respondents to take action as warranted under law. That means liberty has been granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings under Rules 20 and 21 of the CCA Rules, if required. But, the fact remains that so far, no charge memo has been issued to the petitioner under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules. Without initiating any proceedings under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, the

7

DR, J

W.P.No.29216 of 2024

respondents ought not to have withheld the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. In fact, Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 specifically provides the State Government reserves the right to withhold pension and gratuity or with both. But in the instant case, no disciplinary proceedings are contemplated under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules against the petitioner. Therefore, as directed by this Court in W.P.No.8642 of 2021, the respondents ought to have released all monetary benefits, including the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Hence, the rejection of the petitioner‟s claim vide impugned order dated 19.06.2024 is not only contrary to the observations made in

¶60

the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal, which were confirmed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, but is also contrary to Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules.

¶61

Reply to the said contentions, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State based on the averments made in the counter has contended that in fact as directed by this Court in the above writ petition, the District Collector, East Godavari District, has issued orders directing the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Hukumpeta to verify the connected records, service register of the individual and pay the

¶62

8

¶63

DR, J W.P.No.29216 of 2024

¶64

arrears of salary. Accordingly, the respondents have considered and released the salary of the petitioner from 08.07.2017 to 30.04.2021. Further, when there is no sanctioned post and nonavailability of the record pertaining to the petitioner‟s appointment and the enquiry conducted by the respondents, they have rejected for entitlement of the pension.

¶65

Considering the submissions and on perusal of the record as well as the averments made in the counter, it is very surprising that, being a District Panchayat Officer, he is unable to understand the directions issued in the above writ petition. When the Court find fault with the termination orders stating that the said orders are not in compliance with Rules 20 and 21 of the CCA Rules and the said observations were confirmed by the Division Bench as well as the Hon‟ble Apex Court, again the respondents ought not to have taken same objection, which is not only contrary to record but is also contrary to the observations made by this Court in the above W.P.No.8642 of 2021. If at all the respondents intended to do so, they should have initiated proceedings under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules. However, even now, no such proceedings have been initiated. Hence, as per Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, without

¶66

9

¶67

DR, J W.P.No.29216 of 2024

¶68

having any proceedings, the authority should not have withheld the petitioner‟s pensionary benefits. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.8642 of 2021.

¶69

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 and directing the respondents to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondents failed to release the said amounts, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest as per the provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶71

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 05.02.2026 Ivd

10

W.P.No.29216 of 2024

DR, J