Dake Venkata Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dake Venkata Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and release the petitioner's retirement benefits as per rules; exercise to be completed within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' non-release of the petitioner's sanctioned retirement benefits (gratuity and commuted pension) on the ground of outstanding private loan dues to co-operative credit societies and a bank, when there is no attachment by any competent court or authority, is illegal and arbitrary, and whether the respondents can be directed to release the benefits.

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and release the retirement benefits as per rules, and the exercise shall be completed within four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded that there are no prohibition orders from the competent Court, in the context of the respondents' stand that dues exceeded the retirement benefits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Retirement benefits — withholding of sanctioned gratuity and commuted pension — petitioner, a retired Line Inspector of APEPDCL, challenged non-release of benefits sanctioned on 20.08.2024; respondents justified withholding on the ground that outstanding loan dues to co-operative credit societies and Canara Bank (around Rs.44,55,802/-) exceeded the retirement benefits payable (Rs.43,17,729/-); petitioner contended there was no attachment by any competent court or authority and the dues were only private loan dues; Court, without going into the merits, disposed of the writ petition directing respondents to consider and release the retirement benefits as per rules, noting there were no prohibition orders from the competent Court; exercise to be completed within four months of receipt of copy of order; no order as to costs.

1

APHC010572682025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3208]

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 29914/2025

Between:

DAKE VENKATA RAO,, S/O MUSALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC RETIRED LINE INSPECTOR, APEPDCL, R/O BATHINASUBBA RAO NAGAR, KOTHAPETA, BOMMURU, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

AP EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,. SEETHAMMADHARA, P AND T COLONY VISAKHAPATNAM -530013.

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, HRD APEPDCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, SEETHAMMADHARA, P AND T COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM -530013.

2

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, APEPDCL, AMALAPURAM, DR.BR AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION DIVISION, APEPDCL, AMALAPURAM, DR.BR AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.KINTALI DHARMA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.29914 of 2025

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the petitioner’s sanctioned retirement benefits viz., gratuity and commuted pension, despite sanction by the authority on 20.08.2024, as illegal and arbitrary.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 has placed the instructions received from the Executive Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Amalapuram dated 30.10.2025. According to the said instructions, though the petitioner is entitled for retirement benefits for an amount of

Rs.43,17,729/-, there are outstanding dues from various Co-operative Credit Societies and Canara Bank including the APEB Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited also which comes to around Rs.44,55,802/-. As the amounts are more than the retirement benefits, the respondents have not released the same.

4

Reply to the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are no attachments by any competent Court or by the authority. Hence, without having any attachment by the competent Court, the respondents ought not to have withheld the retirement benefits and as the dues are only private loan dues, it is nothing to do with the respondents.

Considering the submissions and on perusal of the instructions, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and release the retirement benefits as per rules. However, there are no prohibition orders from the competent Court. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 22.01.2026 Ivd

5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.29914 of 2025

Dated: 22.01.2026

Ivd