S.Venkateshwara Rao Vs The Union of India

S.Venkateshwara Rao,^{S/o: late Shri Rama Rao, Age 61- years'} Occ. inspector^{(Rtd.) RPF. R/o.H.No.'1-36/12,Manju Anurag} ElgtgY"' Miof,rtrbrn Najar,^{Cipp VijbyN/arySchool,tvlalkajgiri,Hyderabad- 500047}

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Union of lndia,^{Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi'}

¶13

2 The Rarlway Board, Rep.^{by its Chairman, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi'}

¶14

J The Director General,^{Railway ProtectionForce' Railway Board, New Delhi'}

¶15

4 ThelnspectorGeneralcum-PCsC,,RailwayProtectionSpecialForceRailway Board Extension.^{Dayabasli. New Delhi.}

¶16

5 The Commanding^{officer,5th Battalion, Railway.Protection Special Force'} Kimber Garden, Rhajamalai,^{Tiruchirapalli,Tamil Nadu'}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶19

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstanCesstated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} modify the orders of^{Learned Single Judge, restricting the payment of pension} and terminal benefits^{till the disposalof sLP No.007804 ol 2023on the file of} Hon'ble Apex^{Courtand consequentiydirectthe respondentsto releasethe}

¶20

entire pensron and terminar benefits, pending disposar of the in the interest of .lustice

¶21

counsel for the Appeilant: SRr pRATAp NARAYAN SANGHl, REpREsENTTNG SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHI

¶22

counsel for the Respondents: MS. L. PRANATHT REDDY (sr sc FoR CENTRAL GOVT)

¶23

The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶24

, I

¶25

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF^{JUSTICE SRI APARESH KI]MAR SINGH} AND

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHTI'DDIN

¶27

Writ Appeal No.459 of 2025

¶28

JUDGMENT:

¶29

Heard Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned^Senior Counsel representing^{Mr.AvadeshNarayan Sanghi, learned} counsel for the appellant.^{Also heard Ms' L.Prarrathi} Reddy, learned Senior^{Standing Counsel forCentral} Government appearing^{for the respondents.}

¶30

Appellant has preferred this appeal^{againstthe order} dated 31.01.2025^passed in^{W.P.No.7619 of 2024 by the} learned writ court.

¶31

The appellant, who is writ petitioner, faced^both departmental proceedings, uide^{Charge Sheetin} Lr.No.X/SC/227 lt53l12 l2006 dated^{18.10.2006 and} criminal cases prosecuted by the Central Bureau^of Investigation court. ln the crimina-l case, he was convicted on 23.O2.2O l0 and thereafter, disnrissed from service, uide Order No.2010/Sec/(ABtr)/PRR/5/7, dated 17.06.2OlO.

¶32

2

¶33

\

¶34

1n The statutory appeal preferred by the appellant Crl.A.No.339 of 2OlO ended up in his acquitta-I, uide judgment datcd 29.11.2A22. He sough'. reinstatement. Since no action was taken, he aporoached n'rit court. In W.P.No.9752 of 2023, thc learned writ court directed the respondents to consider his representation, uide order dated 25.O4.2023 on the issue of reinstatement Consequently, respondent No.3 passed order dated 28.06.2023 setting aside the dismissal order. He was reinstated into service, uide Battdion Order No.61 of 2023 dated 28.06.2023. He superannuated, uicle Battaiion Order No.62 of 2023 dated 30.06.2023. The pericd ol dismissal rvas treated as 'Not on Duty' on the principle 'No Work No Pay'. Appellant approached the writ court once again W.P.No.76 19 of 2024 assailing the pending departmental proceeding. The learned rvrit court upon consideration of rival submissions of the parties, held that the charge sheet against the appellant in the departmental proceedings is on the similar set of charges, which rvere the subject matter of criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the learned writ court

¶35

J

¶36

t

¶37

quashed the departmental^{proceedingscontinuing against} the appellant. Letters^{dated 15.03.2024and l8'O3'2O24'} appointing the Enquiry^{Officers were also set aside'} However, while setting^{aside, the learned writ Court} observed that since^{the Special LeavePetition(SLP)} preferred by the CBI^{againsthis acquittal is still pending} consideration before the^{Hon'bleSupremeCourt, the} appellant was^{grantedliberty tomake asuitable} representation for^{release of pensionarybenefitsafter} disposal of the SLP.^{Respondentswere asked to see that} the appellant is^{being paid the provisionalpension'} Aggrieved by the last^{pa-rt of the order, the appellant} preferred this appeal.

¶38

4 . Learned Senior Counsel^{for appellant submitsthat} a-fter the acquittal^{of the appellant, merely on the pendency} of the SLP, without any^{stay of his conviction, there is no} reason to withhold his^{pensionary benefits. The applicable} statutory rule also^{does not provide for withholdingof} pension upon conclusion^{of judicialproceedingsin favour} of the delinquent^{employee.He submitsthat a Division} Bench of the erstwhile^{AndhraPradesh High Court in the}

¶39

.l

¶40

4

¶41

case of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad v. R.S.Ramakrishna Raor relying upon a decision of a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the . case of State of West Bengal v. Hari Ramalu2 held that there is no power to the Government to withhold pension or retirement benelits after the criminal Court acquits the accused-employee. In that case, Rules 9 and 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised pension Rules, 19g0 were in question.

¶42

It is submitted that the Railway Services (pension) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as, ,the Rules,) relied upon by the respondents also do not permit withholding of pension upon conclusion of judicial proceedings in favour of the delinquent employee or accused. It is therefore submitted that the order of the learned writ court to that extent may be interfered arrd the pensionary dues to be released in favour of the appellant.

¶43

Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has referred to Rule 9 of the Rules and

¶44

'zoto tu; e1p^,7; 1pu, ' 2000 (4 ) SI_R I I

)

i J

t

submitted that the Railway^{Departmentmay withhold} pension or the appointing authority^{may withholdpension} or gratuity, or both,^{either in full or in part, or withdraw a} pgnsion in full or in^{part, rvhether permanentlyor for a} specilied period, and order^{recovery from a pensionor} gratuity of the whole or^{part of any pecuniar5z loss caused} to the Railway, if, in^{any departmental proceedings or} judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found^{guiltyof grave} misconduct or negligence^{during the period of service,} including service rendered^{upon re-employmentafter} retirement.

¶49

She submits that the^{pendency of the SLP would} amount to continuation^{of the judicialproceedings.She} has relied upon a decision^{of the Apex Court renderedin} Secretary, &ocal Self-Government^{Department, State of} Kerala v. K.Chandran3^{in particularparagraph 40 thereof'} 8. It is submitted that^{ifthe appellant isfinaliy} convicted, Railways would^{not be in a positionto recover} the pensionar5r dues^{disbursed in his favour.Therefore, the} learned writ court has^{rightlyobservedthat during the} '^{(2022)12 sccto4}

¶50

6

¶51

'..1

¶52

pendenc)' of the SLP against his acquitta-l, the appeilant would be entitled to make a representation for release of pension only depending upon the outcome of the SLp. Till .then, the appellant be paid the provisional pension.

¶53

9 . We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties at length and taken note of the material facts relevant to the controversy. We have also taken note of the extant rules applicable to the case of the appellant and the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the rival parties.

¶54

Rule 9 of the Rules, which confers powers to withhotd or withdraw pension upon the appointing authority in case of a railway employee facing departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings is extracted hereunder in ertenso:

¶55

"9. Pqwer to withhold or withdraw pension.- (1) (a) The President, in the case of a pensioner who retired from a post for which the President is the appointing authority; (b) the Railway Board, in the case of a pensioner who retired from a post for which arr authority subordinate to the President is the appointing authority,

¶56

may, by order in writing, withhold a pension or gratuity, or both, cither in full or in part, or withdraw a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and order recovery from a pension or gratuity of the r,r.hole

¶57

7

¶58

I I

¶59

or part^{of any pecuniary loss caused to the Railway'ifin} any departmental^{proceedingsor judicial proceedings'the} pensioner is^{found guiltyof grave misconductor negligence} during^{the periodof service' including service rendered} upon re-employment^{after retirement:} Provided^{that the Union tir'blicServiceCommissionshall be} are passed bY^the consulted^{before any hnalorders} President^{underthis sub-rule:} Provided^{further that where a part of pensionis wittrheld or} withdrawn,^{the amount ofsuch pensionshall not be} reduced^{belowthe amountof minimumpensionunder rule} 69

¶60

(2) (a) The^{departmentalproceedings referred to in sub-rule} (1), if instituted^{while the railway servant was in service} whether^{before his retirementor during his re-employment'} shall, aJter^{the finalretirementof the railway servant'be} deemed to^{be proceedings under this rule and shall be} continued^{and concludedby the authority by whichthey} manner^{as ifthe railwaY} were commenced^{in the same} servant^{had continued in service}

¶61

Provided^{that where the departmenta-lproceedingsare} instituted^{by aIauthoritysubordinate to the Competent} Authority^{to passorder under sub-rule (1)' that authonty} shallsubmitareportrecordingitslrndingstothesaid competent^authoritY' (b) Notwithstanding^{anything contained in sub-rule(1) and} clause^{(a), the departmental proceedings institutedunder} rulelloftheRailwayServants(DisciplineandAppeal) Rules,^{1968, whilethe railwayservant was in service and} continuedafterretirement,shallhavenoeffectonthe pension and^{gratuityof the pensioner'}

¶62

l

¶63

8

¶64

(c) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the railway servant was in service, whether before his rcliremenl. or during his re-employment,

¶65

(i) shatl not be instituted except with the sanction of the authority competent to pass order under sub-rule (1) in Format I :

¶66

(ii) shall not be instituted in respcct of any event which took place more [hart four years before such institutron; ald (iii) shal1 be conducted by such authority in such place as the authority competent to pass order under sub_rule (l), may direct and in accordalcc with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made rn relation to the railway servant during his service:

¶67

ProvideC that for the purpose of instituting departmental procecdings under this sub-rule, a memorandum of charges shall be communicated to the pensioner concerned in Formar 2.

¶68

(d) where a full-fledged inquiry is conducted giving an opportunity to the such railway servant to show cause during the proceedings in accordance with the Railway Servants (Discipiine arrd Appeal) Rules, 196g, aly further opportunity to show cause wou1d. not be necessarJz before taking action in same matter under sub-rule (1).

¶69

(3) ln the case of railway servant rvho has retired on attarning the age of supcrannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings instituted under rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Ru1es, 1968 are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension as prowided in rule l0 shall be sanctioned.

a/

9

I

(4) Where^{tJre authority competent to pass order under sub-} rule (1)^{decides not to withhold or withdraw pensionbut} orders recovery^{of pecuniaryloss from pension'the recovery} shall not^{ordinarilybe made at a rate exceedingone-third of} on the^{date of retirementof a} the pension^admissible railway servant.

¶74

(5) (a) No appeal^{shall1ie against any order made by the} President^{under this rule '}

¶75

(b) An appeal^{against an order under sub-rule(1)'passed by} an authority^{other than the President'shal1 lie to the} Presidentandt}rePresidentshall,inconsultationwiththe Union Public^{ServiceCommission' pass such orders on the} appeal as^{he deemsfit} .

¶76

(6) The President^{mayat anytime' eitheron his own motron} or otherwise^{call for the recordsof any inquiry and revisc} any order^{made undertJreserules'a-fter consultation with} the Union^{Public Service Commission' ald may conhrm'} modify or^{set aside the order; or remit the case to any} authority^{directing such authorityto make suchfurther} enquiry as^{it may consider properin the circumstancesof} the case^{or pass such other orderas he may deem ht:}

¶77

(

¶78

Providedthatnoord.erenhancingtheamountofpensionor gratuity to^{be withheld or withdrawn'shall be made by the} President^{unlessthe railway servant concerned has been} given an opportunity^{of makinga representation against the} order^{proposed and exceptafter consultationwiththe Union} Public Service^Commission'

¶79

(7) The President^{mayat any time' eitheron his own motion} or otherwise^{review any orderpassed underthese rules'} where extenuating^{or special circumstalces exist to warrant} such review^{or when any new materia-lor evidencewhich} could not^{be producedor was not avarlableat the timeof}

¶80

l0

¶81

passrng the order under review ald which has the effect of chalging the nature of the case, has come, or has been brought, to his notice:

¶82

Provided that no order enhalcing the amount of the pension or gratuity to be wrthhcld or withdrawa, sha.ll be made by the President unless the railway servant concerned has been given an opportunity of making a representation against the order proposed and except a-fter consultation with the Union public Senrice Commission. Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule,_

¶83

( t ) (a) the departmental proceedings shan be deemed to be instrtuted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Railu,ay servant or pensioner, or if the railway servant has bcen placed under suspension from an earher date, on such date; and

¶84

(b) the judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted,

¶85

(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which t,.e Magistrate tal<es cognisance, is made; and

¶86

(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on ttre date the suit is filed in t he court.

¶87

(2) the expression "misconduct, means any act done or omitted to be done by the pensioner, during the period of servrce, including service arter redremenr, and ;ft:;: f":Jr:Tr,:lTJ provisions of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, for which action under R Appeal) Rures, I e68 .",,.1:"1*::*fl:J";:tH:fl1 servrce. (3) ihc action under sub-rule (l) may be taken, if the pensioner is found guilly of,.

¶88

ll

¶89

(i) any corrupt^{practicesduring service;}

¶90

(ii) any misconduct^{whetherin relation to the performance} of offrcial duty or^{otherwise;ald}

¶91

(iii) any misconduct^{whetherresulting in pecuniary loss to} the Government^{or otlterwise.}

¶92

(4) the expression^{"civilproceedings"meansuch} proceedings in respect^{of a civil suit flled by the Government} only.

¶93

(Authority: Raiiway^{Board's letter No' 2023lF(E)III/PN1/I} dated 24.06.20241"

¶94

As the^{na-rration of facts disclosesthat not only the} departmental^{proceedings has been quashed bythe} learned writ court^{but also the judicial proceedings in the} nature of criminal^{proceedingsprosecuted by the CBI has} ended in the^{acquittal of the appellant, uide judgment} da1ed 23.02.2010,^{whereuponthe appellant has also been} reinstated into^{service. He wassubsequently} superannuated^{aIId isseeking pensionarybenehts on} account of acquittal^{in the criminalcase'}

¶95

The^{question before us is, whether the pendencyof} SLP against the^{acquittalof the appellant,wherein there is} no order of stay^{of the conviction,would entitle the} respondents railways^{to withholdthe pensionary benehts of} the appellant^{or not?}

({

)2

\

-..'

I 3. We are clear in our minds that if the judicial proceeding or departmental proceeding has come to an end in favour of the employee, like in the present case, the statutory rule does not provide for aly exception to still withhold the pensionary dues of such an employee. The judicial proceedings have come to an end upon his acquittal' Mere pendency of the SLp before the Hon,bre Supreme Court without any stay on the conviction could not clothe the respondent_employer with a right to withhold his pension.

¶101

.t

¶102

In this regard, the opinion of the learned Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh in the case of R.S.Ramakrishna Rao (supra) is apposite to be extracted herein:

¶103

"18. As per Rule 52(l)(c) of the pension Rules, ttle

¶104

Government is empowered to withhold $atuity till the frnal orders are passed either in the departmental or judicial proceedings. Once final orders are passed, there rs no provision that empowers the Government to withhold retirement benefits.

¶105

2O. Insofar as the criminal cases are concerned, the department has got a right to hle an appeat. But, it cannot be satd that the judicial proceedings have not

¶106

t3

¶107

been concluded.^{Once the criminal Court acquitsthe} accused, it^{mustamount to be the conclusion of the} judicial proceedings in^{the first instance Therefore'the} appeals hled agarnst^{the acquitta'lorderscannot be} treated as^{continuationof criminalproceedings' The} same view^{was takenby a Division Bench of Ca'lcutta} High Court^{in State ofWest Bengal'scase (supra)'} referred to above.^{Para 9 of the said judgmentreadsas} follows:

¶108

-The submission of Mr' Chakraborty to the effect^that pendency of the appeal^{against acquittal will amount to} co.,ti.,ratio., of^{the proceedingscannotbe accepted'} Continuatlon of^{theproceedings must relateto} investigation,^{enquiry or trial, and such investigation'} ".rqri.| iralmint^o. of acquittal.^{trial, if any' The have same being cometo continuing an end with in thethe} ir,"Lnt .as., is^{misconceived, only on the ground that an} appeat there^{against is pending lf the respondentNo l is} .or-r,ri"t.a^by the^{AppealCourt for commission of a} criminal offence,^{sub-rule(4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules} woutd be attracted-^{Keepingin view the fact that diflerent} sub rules of^{Rules3 operate in differentfrelds' we are of} the opinion that^{sub iule (3) oi Rule 3 be held. to.be} op...iirr" only^{in the casenamely'whenan investigation} ..rqrl.y o. tiial^{remains pendingand not or w.hel} lhe .*ptoy.. person^{is acquitted The situationsobtaining} u.rd.. d,ff....tt^{sub-rulebeingabsolutelydifferent'in our} opinion, sub rule^{(3) of Rute 3 mustbe givena restnctlve} interpretation".

¶109

not in continuation^{of original} 21. If the appeal^is criminal^proceedings, the order of acquittal^{is a fina-l} order within the^{ambit of Rule 52 of the Pension Rules'} referred to above.^{After the orders of acquittal passed by} the criminal^{Court,as already statedabove, there is no} power for the Government^{towithhold pensionor} retirement benehts.^{The said benefrts,therefore,are liatrle} to be paid immediately^{after acquittalorder'}

¶110

I I

¶111

22.lf the appeal^{orrevision proceedings arein} continuation of ttre^{criminal proceedings,there will be no}

14

q

I I

-.!

-1

...1

end for the litigation ald the employees, who have been acquitted honourably, shall not get retirement benefits tlll conclusion of all appeals, revlslons, special leave petittons etc. Appeal against acquittal, not being continuaLion of original criminal proceedings, Rule 52 as above, will not be available to Government for withholding retirement benelits.,,

¶119

15 Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision ln K.Chandran (supra) rendered by the Hon,ble Supreme Court. On perusal of the said decision, we find that the issue before the leared Apex Court was as follows:

¶120

"On the conviction in a criminal case for violation of integrity norms in performalce of ollicial duties and al appeal pending before the High Court, is the employee still entitled to the release of his death_cum-reLirement gratuity (for short "DCRG) is the moot point arising for consideration in the present appeals. We are, in fact, exarnrnrng a Full Bench judgment [K. Chandran v. State of Kerala, 2O2O SCC Online Ker 4I5Ol of rhe Kerala High Court which resolved the conflict of view of the Division Benches [Ed. : The reference appears to be to Kerala SEB v. K. Kesauan, 201.4 SCC Online Ker 9987; Arauindaksha panicker v. Accountant General, 2OOZ SCC Online Ker 376; State of Keralav. R. Muraleedharan Nair, 2Ol5 SCC Online Ker t8292 and, A. Rajanv. State of Kerala, 2OL4 SCC Online Ker ll942.l and ruled in favour of the employees. The controversy having been set down. the

¶121

l5

¶122

I (

¶123

Government^{of Kerala, whichis naturally aggrieved by ttre} decision lK.^Chandronv '^{Stateof Kerata'2O2OSCC Online} Ker 4I5Ol^{of the Full Bench is beforeus on the aforesaid} lSSUE

¶124

The^{employee had beenconvicted for offences under} the Prevention^{of CorruptionAct' 1998' In this factual} matrix,theApexCourtafterreferringtotheapplicable Rules, and^{the precedentson the point' heldas under:}

¶125

"4O.^{We also believethat it is a very restrictiveview to} disburse^{DCRG' on account o[ the proceedings againsta} pensioner coming^{to arr end,even wherea convictionhas} arisen.^{This is espccially so wherethe convicted person has} availed of^{tJre remedy of appeal An appeal is a continuation} of the^{proceedingsin trial and would be' thus'a} continuaLion^{of judicialproceedings'For example'ifno} appeal had^{been hled,can it be said that despite conviction} in the crimina,l^{case, the State is without authority of} forfeiting the^{DCRG or pension for that matter? If it is not} so, as we^{believe,then the pendency of the appeal caanot} disentitle^{the State from withholdingthe DCRG' considering} that it is^{a hiatusperiod within which certainalrargements} have to be^{made which would be dependenton the outcome} of the aPPeal."

¶126

17 . As the^{facts of the said case disclosethat the} a judgment of respondent-employee^{was suffering}

7

I6

'.i

\

conviction, the question was whether the filing of al appeal by the convict would denude the authority from forfeiting the Death_cum_Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) or pension. In that context, the Apex Court held that pendency of the appeal cannot disentitle the State from withholding the DCRG considering that it is a hiatus period within which certain arrangements have to be made which would be dependent on the outcome of the appeal. 18. This case on hand is rather converse. Here, the employee had been acquitted There is no stay of conviction by the Honble Supreme Court. Mere pendency of the SLp could not be treated as continuation of a judicial proceeding, which has ended up in the acqurttal of the appellalt by the appellate court. The statutory rule also does not permit withholding of pension upon conclusion of judicial proceedings.

¶132

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons and the decision in the case of R.S.Ramakrishna Rao (supra), we are of the considered view that the learned writ court erred in holding that the appe,ant would be at libert5r to make a suitable representation for release of pensionary benefits

¶133

l1

¶134

I il

¶135

after disposal^{of the SLP and till that time' he would be} paid the^{provisional pension'This Court is therefore of the} opinion^{that the appellant is entitled for release of his} pensionary^{benefits upon his acquittal in the criminal case} also for^{the reasonthat the departmental proceedinghas} been set^{aside by the learnedwrit court' The respondents} shall^{take adecision on therelease ofadmissible} pensionary^{dues of the appellant within a period of four} (04) weeks.

¶136

The Writ^{Appeal is accordinglyallowed' Thereshall be} no order^{as to costs}

¶137

Misceilaneous^{applicationspending' if any' shall}

¶138

stand closed.

¶139

SD/.K. SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

¶140

//TRUE COPY//

¶141

SECTION^OFFICER

¶142

To, 1. The Secretary,^{Ministry of Railways,The Urrion of lndia, NewDelhi} i. ft," cniit.ii,^{nait Btiavan, The-RailwayBoard, New Delhi'} 5. in" oit"itor General,^{Railway Protection'Force,Railway-Board'NewD^elhi'} +. tne tnspector General-cum-Pcsc_.,^{Railway ProtectionspecaalForce Rallway} Board Extention, Dayabasli,^{New Delhi.}

¶143

5 ihe Ctmm;nding ofricer,^{5th Bettalion,RarlwayProtection SpecialForce,} Kimber Garden, khajamalai,^{Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu'}

¶144

6 On; CC to Sri Avadbsh^{NarayanSanghi,Advocate} [OP-U-C]7. One CC to [vls. L Pranathi^{Re'Odv(Sr SC for CENTRALGOW) IOPUC]} 8. Two CD Copies TJ BS c. a-,

HIGH COURT

DATED:04lOBt2O2S

JUDGMENT

WA.No.459 of 20ZS

t
.1ri IHE 57 4t
6r
13 AUE M z
!)
Q"
l rcr

¶150

ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS