Allowed

Dr. M. Sarveshwar Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Telangana HC5 Feb 2025WP/28424/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a retired government servant seeking release of retirement gratuity withheld due to pending criminal proceedings. The Court, relying on precedents and G.O.Rt.No. 1097, directed the release of 80% gratuity expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to release 80% gratuity to the petitioner within ten weeks in accordance with G.O.Rt.No. 1097 dated 22.06.2000.

Dr. M. Sarveshwar Reddy Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETI TION NO: 284240F 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dr. M. Sarveshwar Reddy, S/o Late Narasimha Reddy, Aged 62 years, Addl. S.p. / Assistant Director (co-oniination) (Reta.l,-CriVFii, iShoi"iceA;A"rvi ijvjiiri'olo, Rl/o 401, NVS Heighrs Apartment, byoei'Hirrs-, CVUL,.lro"O, Hyderabad.''^{' '' --' --J}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

ANO

¶11

1 Ilp^-S_t?|"_ "J l"]?ngr.n?r E"p..^{Oy. its_ principat Secretary,Home Departmenr,} rerangana secretanat, Hyderabad _ S0O 022.

¶12

2 JIP^:Sj1t_e^oI-Te]-alg,g1a.,,R9p^{by its prhcipat Secretary, Finance Department,} r erangana Secretanat, Hyderabad - SOO 022.

¶13

3 Il,"^-S_t:!"- gf-I9l1ngqng,, F"p, by its-Princ_ipar Secretary, G.A. Department, I erangana Secretanat, Hyderabad _ 500 022.

¶14

The State of Telanoana, Rep ^by its Secretary, Law Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hydera6ad - SOO'O22.

¶15

The Director Generar of porice, Govemment of rerangana, Lakdikapur, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶16

The Principal Accountant General (A and E), Telangana, Hyderabad - S00 004.

¶17

The Joint Director, Pension payment Office, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to decrare the impugned action of the respondents in not releasing and paying retirement gratuity in consideration of representation daled o7lo9l2o21 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and

¶20

consequently direct the respondents to take all those necessary steps for release and payment of retirement gratuity to the petitioner passing appropriate orders in that regard duly taking into consideration of representation daled ollogt2021 without reference to pendency of criminal proceedings in c.c. No. 6/20'lg in crime No.2Bl2O11, ClU, ACB, Hyderabad on the file of I Addt. Session Court (S) ACB Cases immediately as such ahd to grant.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

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 to direct the respondents to take all those necessary steps for release and payment of retirement gratuity to the petitioner passing appropriate orders in that regard duly taking into consideration of representation dated 07 togt2o2i without reference to pendency of criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 6/2018 in Crime No. 2B\ZO11, ClU, ACB, Hyderabad on the file of I Addl. Session Court (S) ACB Cases forthwith, pending disposal of writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. RAM REDDy

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 5: Gp FOR HOME SRI M.V. RAMA RAO, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents No.2 & 7: Gp FOR SERVICES-||l

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents No.3 & 4: Gp FOR SERVICES-II

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI K. BALA KISHAN,

¶28

S.C. FOR ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

, \

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.28424 OF 2O2l

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition is hled, under Article 226 of the

¶35

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief

¶36

"-..to issue dn dppropnate WiL Order or Direction, more particulatlA one in the nature of writ of Mctnd(unus, to declore ttle impugned actton of the respondenLs in not relea-sing and pagirg retirentenl gratuitg in considerdtion of representaton dated O7/O9/2O21 .1s illegal, arbitrary dnd unconstitutional and consequentlg direcl the respondcnLs @ take o'Ll llose tecessary steps for reledse and pagment of reltrement graluily to tlte petitiotrcr passitg appropiate orders in thnt regard dulg taking into cottsde.Ittion of representation dated 07/09/2021 without rekren<:e to pendetrcy of cirnural proceedrtgs n C-C.No.6/2O18 in Crime No.28/2O11, CIU, ACB. Hyderabad o,t the^ji.le of I Addl. Session Court (S) ACB Cases immediatel!1as sr/<rh and lo gratt-.-'

¶37

Heard Sri K-Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.l and 5; learned Government Pleader for Services-lll for respondent Nos.2 and 7; learned Government Pleader for Serviceg-ll for respondent Nos.3 and 4; and Sri K.Bala Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for Accountant General, for respondent No.6.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitloner submits that the subject matter of this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.33379 of 2023, dated. I 1.12.2023, and requested this Court to pass similar order in the present Writ Petition also. The same is not seriously disputed by the learned Government Pleader as well as Icarned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶39

PK,,] wp 28424 2021

¶40

¶41

In view of the above submissions and for the reasons alike in the order of this Court in W.P.No.33379 ol 2023, dated 11.12.2023, this Wrir Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release 80% gratuity to the petitioner in accordance with G.O.Rt.No. 1097, dated 22.06.2000, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of ten ( l0) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Miscellaneous pe titions pending, if any, shatl stand closed. There shall be no ordcr as to costs.

¶43

SO,^{.MOfiD.ISMAIL} IST NT REGISTRAR

¶44

,ITRUE^COPY// ECTTON^OFFTCER

¶45

state^{or relansana' reransana}

¶46

Home rDePartment'

¶47

To, t |[:,5.,j?,"Jiffi:?:?Yfll

¶48

t De^{partment' Stateor rera nsana' rerang ana}

¶49

'^{I!:,:[?:ifl ",fr?%1:?:} 33nce

¶50

state^{or reransana'rerangana}

¶51

. U:.L:H'fflr:::iB:S rfiA2Department'

¶52

4 The Secretary,^{Law Department' State of Telangana' Telangana Secretariat'} Hyderabad^{- 500 022}

¶53

/:^,ornment of relangana'^Lakdikapul'

¶54

4 The Director^{General of Police' Governmentt} " HYderabad - 500 001'

¶55

The^{Principal Accountant General(A and E)' Telangana' Hyderabad - 500} 004.

¶56

Pension^{Payment Office' t'/l'J Road' Nampally'}

¶57

The^{Joint Director'} HYderabad'

¶58

One CC to SRI K. RAM REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

¶59

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶60

10.Two CCs to SRI M.V. RAMA RAO, Special Government Pleader, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶61

11.Two CCs to GP for Services-lll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶62

12.Two CCs to GP for Services-ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶63

13.One CC to SRI K. BALA KISHAN, S.C. forAccountant General [OPUC]

¶64

14.Two CD Copies

¶65

Along with a copy of the order dated 11 .12.2023 in W.P.No.33379 ot 2023.

MP BS z'

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510212025

0 0

ORDER

WP.No.2$424.o t ?021

(),]
2 1 FIB 2025
I,
,.i- I
I

¶75

/z//
2t2 ,r45

¶76

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶77

,..rTl',

¶78

THE TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I(ARTHIK

¶79

WRIT PETITION No. 33379 of 2o23

¶80

ORDER:

¶81

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: --__+ "...tp rls-sue d writ ord.er or directbn more parttcularlg one in the nature of Wrtt of Mandamus to d.eclare the actton of the respondents in not relea,sing the retirement beneftts tn terms of G.O.Rt.No. 1 097 Finance and Planning depattment dated 22.06.2000 includtng Gratuity to the petitibner on the ground of pendency of C.C.NI. t 6 of 2013 on the file of the Hon'bte Special Judge for SPD ant ACB cases at Vijayawada is tllegal, arbitrarg and uncoi*titutional consequently to dtrect the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for rEleose of Gratuitg in terms of G. O Rt. No. 1 O 97 Finance and Planning dep artment doted 22.O6.2O00 without reference. to ACB case in C.C.No. 16 of 2O 13 on the file of the Hon'bte Speciat Judge for SPE and ACB cases at Viiagawada bg following^{the Rule9 of Reubed Pensbn} kubs, 1980 in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.13353 of 2O18, dated O5.Oi.2023 wtth all consequential beneJits including admbsible interest and pcs5...^z

¶82

Z--

¶83

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services - IV appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Perused the record.

¶84

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initiaily appointed as Junior Assistant in

! t.t

PK,J wP_33379_2023

Treasuries and Accounts Department in the year, 1987 . Later, he was appointed as Technical Assistant through employment exchange in the year, 1992. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Royality Inspector and-Assistant Geologist and further promoted as Assistant Director in the year, 2009. After rendering thirty five years of service, the petitioner has retired from services on 31.05.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. lt is further submitted that while working as an Assist;nt Director of Mines and Geologl, Nandigama, the ACBauthorities have registered a case against the petitioner on 04.05.201 I . Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension uide G.O.Rt.No.253, dated 07.05-2011. While things stood thus, the petitioner was retired from services on 31.05.2020. After repeated requests made by the petitioner, the respondents - authorities have granted provisional pension to the petitioner ui.d.e G.O.Rt.No. 1 14, dated 24.08.2027, but they have not released retirement gratuity to the petitioner. It is also submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.1097 Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.06.2000, family benefit fund, APGIS, general provident

t- lrt

PK,J wp_33379_2023

fund, Telangana Government Life Insurance and sorne of the portion of retirement gratuity can be paid to the employee. Though the petitioner retired in the month of May, 2O2O, the petitioner has not received any retirement gratuity till date. I It is further submitted that though respondent No.l issued G.O.Rt.No.l14, dated 24.O8.2O2L according permission to release the provisional pension as per Rule 52 of Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980 read with guidelines issued in G.O.Rt.No.tOb7, Finarrce and Planning Department, d,ated 22.06.2000, the authorities have not paid the gratuity to the petitioner.

¶94

l,earned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following^judgments:

¶95

(i) ln Dr.Hira Lal u. State of Bihar & Ors.t, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:

¶96

" 1 3. 1 In our conside red uiew, the Circulars d ated 22.08.1974 and 31.10.1974, and Gouemment Resolution No. 3 1O4 dated 31.07. 1980, were merely adminbtratiue instructtons/ executiue orders. Theg weie not bsued tn exerci.se of the power under Article 309 of the Constiattion and cannot be said to haue the force of laut.

¶97

1 Appeal No. 1677 -1678 of 2o2o

¶98

PK,J u4_33379_2023

¶99

¶100

The Go uernment Resolutinn dated 3 1. O7. I I 8O, came up for consideration before thi,s Court in. State of Jharkhand and Ors. us. Jhendra Kumar Sriuastaua and Ors,3. After considering Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pensioru Rules and Gouernm.ent Resolution No. 3104 dated 31.O7.1980, thi.s Court hdld that the State had no authoritg or pouer b withhold the full amount of pension or gratuity of a Gouemment seruant &ting the pendencg o13 12.8@,210 o judicial or departmental Procee dings. ts Court held that:

¶101

'9. Hauing explained the legal position, lot us first discuss the rules relating to release of Pensinn- The present case is admittedlg gouemed bg the Bihar Pension Rules, as applicable to the State of . Jharkhand. Rule 43(b) of the said Pemsion Rules confers poluer on the State Gouemtnent to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof wtder certain circumstances. ?his Rule 43(b) rea.d.s as under: ..... From the reading of the aforesaid Rule 43(b), follo^{wing p o sttionemerge s :}

¶102

(t) The State Gouernment ha"s the pouer to uttthhold or withdraw pension or anA part of it uthen the pensioner is found to be guilfu of graue mi.sconduct etther in a departmental proceeding or^judtcial proceeding.

¶103

fii)^{fhis proui.siondoes not empowerthe State to} tnuoke the satd power while the depdrtment proceeding or judtcial proceeding are pending. (iii) The power of withholding leale enca.shment i.s not prouided under thts rule to the State irrespectiue of the result of the aboue proceedings.

¶104

(iv) This pouer can be inuoked onlg when the proceedings are concluded finding guilty and not before.

¶105

1 1. Reading of Rule 43(b) makes tt abundantlg clear that euen after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it is permiss tble for the Gouemment to withhold pension etc. ONLY when a Jinding i"s

. {,rr!

PK,J wp_33379_2023

recorded either in departmentd inqutry or judicial proceedings that the employee ha.d committed graue misconduct in the dischorge of hb dutg while in hi.s offtce. There b no proubion in the ruLes for utithholdtng of the pension/gratuitg when such departmental proceedtngs or judicial .proceedings are still pending.

¶110

(ii) ln Gopu Mallqiah a. The State of Telo:ngana2, this

¶111

Court has held as follows:

¶112

"In ui.ew of the^judgmer$s passed bg this Court and A.P.High Court, the impugned Memo No.43 9 1 / SCR. Ser. A2 / 2 0 I 5, dated 3 O. 1 2. 2 O I 7 and. the consequential orders of the 2"d respondent tn LR.Rc.No.A3/ 2703/ 20 1 5, dated 1 7.O 1.20 1 8 is set' aside and the respondents are directed to relea-se the 8O%o of the gratuitg to the petttianer in accordance with G.O.Rt.No.1O97, dated 22.06.2000."

¶113

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in rriew of the law laid down by this Court, the petitioner is entitled to be received 8O% gratuity as per the Rules in force. Therefore, prayed this Court to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for release of Gratuity

¶114

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services IV, on instructions, submitted that as per

¶115

'^{w.p.No. t33s3of 2018, dated o5.o1.2023}

't'lat

PK.J w_33379_2023

G.O.Rt.No. 114 Ind. & Com. (Vig), Dept., dated24.Oa.2O2t, accorded permission to release 75% provisional pension from the eligible pension to the petitioner as per Rule 52 of Telangana Revised Pension Rules, l98O read with guidelines issued in G.O.Rt.No.1O97, Iinance & Planning (FW.Pen.1) Dept, 22.06.2O00. Further, the learned counsel submitted that since the criminal case is pending against the petitioner, he is not entitled for sanction of 8O%o gratuity. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss tne lVrit Petition.

¶120

Admittedly, the petitioner was retired from service on 03.05.2011. Since, a trap case was registered against the petitioner for alleged corruption, the respondents have withheld the retirement gratuity payable to the petitioner. The facts are not in dispute, but the entitlement of 8Oo/o gratuity to the petitioner is only in dispute.

¶121

It is relevalt to extract clause - C of G.O.Rt.No.lQ9T, dated 22.06.2000 Finance and Planning department, for kind perusal

r' !r'l

PK,J w_33379-2023

'C. Rettrement Grattity : According to clause (C) of sub-rule (1) of rule 52 of the Andhra. prade:sh Reuised Pension Rules, 1980, on Gratuitg shajl be paid. until the conclusion of thg departmentat or judicial proceedings and issue of ftnal orders. According to the prouiso b the' aboue said. rule, where departmental proceedings haue been instituted under rute 9 of the Andhra,pradesh Ciuit Seruices (Cla^ssifi.catton, Control and Appeat ) RuLes, 1991, for imposing any of the penalties specifi.ed in clauses (i), (ti) and (iu) of rule 9 of the said. rutes, except the cases falting under sub-rule (2) of rule 22 of the said rules, the Gouernment Seruant. It is atso further^prouided in the satd ntte that where a conclusion lta-s been reached that a portion of pension onlg should be wtthheld or withdrawn and . the retirement gratuitg remains unaffected in the contemplated ftnal orders, the retireinent gratuitA can be released up to 8O% of the eligibb.rdtirement gratuitg."

¶126

Furthermore, the judicial proceedings were pending against tJle petitioner at the time of his retirement and as per Rule 9 (4) and Rule 52 of A.P.Revised pension Rules, the petitioner was entitled to only provisional pension and not full pension. However, the case of the petitioner is that the gratuiQr amount is not paid to him. In identical matters, this Court, in W.P.No.30443 of 2016, dated 14.02.2017 and unreported judgments of A.P. High Court in W.P.No.3421 of 2021, dated L9.O3.2O21 and W.P.No.2545 of 2020, dated 24.O2.2O2O held that the

I I

..tEr

PK,J wP_33379_2023

petitioner therein is eligibte for gratuity as per G.O.Rt.No. 1097, dated 22.06.2000. 10. In view of the judgments passed by.this Court and A.P. High Court, the respondents are directed to release SOyo gratuity to the petitioner in accordance with G.O.Rt.No. 1097, dated 22.06.2OOO. 11. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶133

PULLA I{ARTHIK, J Date : 17.72.2023. TMK

Dr. M. Sarveshwar Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. M. Sarveshwar Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Krishnaswamy Vs The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare

A.Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana

B. Romano Vs The District Education Officer

M. Rampal Vs The State of Telangana

G.Venkataiah Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

T.Samuel Jacob Vs The State of Telangana