Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : LINGARAJA RATH, V.BHASKARA RAO
M.Janakiramaiah - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-30-97
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226, 31, 19 and 199 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 - Section 60 - Pensions Act, 1871 - Section 11 – Promotion – Pension - Petitioner was first appointed as grade clerk and promoted as a Divisional Accountant - Post of Divisional Accountant was however abolished and accordingly petitioner was reverted - Though he was entitled for promotion as superintendent he was dented same - While so he was transferred to Delhi and posted as U-D Accountant in A-P Guest House on attaining superannuation he retired from service - Grievance of petitioner is that he was entitled for promotion as superintendent but same was denied to him - He further stated that Chief Engineer who is Head of Department wrote to promote him as Superintendent with retrospective effect and that High Power Committee appointed to look into grievances of Employees has also held that he was entitled to promotion - In that connection filed a representation in Administrative Tribunal seeking retrospective promotion – Held, However be seen that basis for computation of pension viz basic pay of petitioner as on date of his retirement has been arrived at by us - Then his average pay for qualifying period of service will have to be worked out and pension is to be fixed - We propose to leave this exercise to respondents subject to a condition that petitioner may be given an opportunity of hearing before final settlement of pension and terminal benefits - Last aspect that remains to be considered is whether petitioner is entitled for interest or compensation for wrongfully withholding pension and terminal benefits - Learned Counsel for petitioner stated that petitioner family consisting of himself his sickly wife and four unmarried daughters was put to any amount of misery and hence a reasonable interest or compensation may be awarded - Learned Government Pleader on other hand contended that petitioner himself is responsible for delay if any and that he has been paid minimum pension together with allowances during pendency of matter - Writ petition is allowed.
( 1 ) AN octogenerian pensioner has knocked at the door of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Engineer-in-Chief (Administration Wing) Randb Department to settle his pension and gratuity after refixing his pay in the promotional post pursuant to the judgment of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and to pay the arrears with interest.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was first appointed in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad as III Grade Clerk on 28. 7. 1938 and promoted as a Divisional Accountant on 31. 10. 1956. The post of Divisional Accountant was, however, abolished on 1. 5,1957 and accordingly the petitioner was reverted. Though he was entitled for promotion as Superintendent in the year l958, he was dented the same. While so he was transferred to Delhi and posted as U. D. Accountant in the A. P. Guest Houseon
( 3 ) AND on attaining superannuation on 7. 3. 1970 he retired from service. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was entitled for promotion as Superintendent in the year 1958, but the same was denied to him. He further stated that the Chief Engineer, Randb. , who is the Head of the Department wrote to the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 6. 2. 1970 to promote him as Superintendent with retrospective effect and that the High Power Committee appointed to look into the grievances of Telangana Employees has also held that he was entitled to promotion. In that connection the filed a representation in Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking retrospective promotion. There upon the Tribunal held that he was entitled for promotion with effect from 3-1-1962. His further grievance is that he was sanctioned an anticipatory pension of Rs. 100. 00 per month after 3 years of his retirement and no gratuity was released to him.
( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 resisted the petition denying the material averments of the petitioner s affidavit According to respondent No. 2, the petitioner had defalcated Government funds to the tune of Rs. 27,396. 20ps and pending a decision in the above defalcation case, provisional pension of Rs. 100. 00 per month was released It is also stated by respondent No. 2 that the entire death-cum-retirement gratuity, for short D. C. R. G. , was not released as it is liable to be set off against the loss to the Government It is also stated that an amount of Rs. 57,506-35 ps was due from the petitioner towards the arrears of rent for the quarter occupied by him at New Delhi as per the Judgment of High Court of Delhi, It is then asserted by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner failed to submit the pension papers with correct particulars and in accordance with rules and hence he has been sanctioned provisional pension or anticipatory pension as per the advice of the Accountant General and that the same has been revised to Rs. 370. 00 per month with effect from 1-12-1989 as per G. O. Ms. No. 52, TRandb (S. II) Department-E2, dated 7-3-1992.
( 5 ) ADVERTING to his promotion, it is stated that he has been given notional promotion with effect from 3. 1. 1962. vide proceedings No. RC. General. SR IV/45638/70, dated 10-11-1971 of Chief Engineer, P. W. D. General, A. P. , Hyderabad.
( 6 ) IT is also averred in the counter affidavit that as per Audit Report a sum of Rs. 3,143. 20 ps besides the defalcated amount of Rs. 27,396. 52 ps is also to be recovered from the petitioner and the total sum works out to Rs. 88,046. 08 ps. It is thus explained that the delay in this case has occasioned on account of various Court cases filed by him either in the High Court of Delhi or the Supreme Court.
( 7 ) THE petitioner filed a reply refuting the allegation that he defalcated an amount of Rs. 27396. 20 ps. He also denied that an amount of Rs. 57. 506. 35 ps was due from him towards the rent of the quarters. According to him the respondents cannot withhold his pension on those grounds as no action has been taken either under F. R. 26 o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
