Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

Vide the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged order dated 09.02.2017 passed in O.A.No.1184 of 2016 by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the Government of India through OM No.7/3/84-Pension Unit dated 28.07.1984 has issued order allowing interest on delayed payment of gratuity at the rate of 7% per annum for the period beyond 3 months and upto 1 year and beyond 1 year at the rate of 10% per annum. According to these orders, interest will be allowed only where it is clearly established that the payment of retirement gratuity was delayed on account of administrative lapse or for reasons beyond the control of the Government servant concerned. These rules also contemplated fixing the responsibility for taking necessary action against the persons responsible for such delay in payment. The AG, AP, Hyderabad, in his letter dated 03.07.1986 has requested to consider the adoption of similar orders on State side. The suggestion of AG, AP, Hyderabad has been examined and after careful consideration, the Government has decided that interest may be allowed on payment of retirement gratuity at the rate of 7% per annum for the period beyond 3 months and upto 1 year and beyond 1 year at 10% per annum after the gratuity becomes due and payable till the end of the month preceding the month in which the payment is actually made. In this connection, as per G.O.Rt.No.1034 F&P (FW-Pen.I) Dept. dated 09.06.2000, there is no provision in Government rules to pay interest on Commuted Value of Pension, Encashment of Earned Leave and arrears of pension on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. As per Rule 46 (1-A) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules 1980, interest can be paid on gratuity only from the date of issue of orders dropping the charges.

3. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the learned Tribunal has ignored all these facts while allowing the application filed by the respondent.

4. While the respondent was working as Senior Accountant at Sub Treasury Office, Tenali, a charge memo dated 15.02.2005 was issued framing three charges against him to the effect that he has processed the bills claiming Family Benefit Fund and Group Insurance Scheme amounts submitted by the District Educational Officer, Guntur. The respondent has shown lack of devotion to duty by processing the bills irregularly instead of making payments by Demand Draft allowed them to be credited to Drawing and Disbursing Officer’s Account and thirdly he has processed the bills which are outside the jurisdiction of Guntur District Treasury, and therefore, he had shown negligence in performing his duties. The charges were undoubtedly serious in nature. However, immediately after receipt of the explanation from the respondent and three other delinquent employees, the Deputy Director, who is the disciplinary authority, has gone into the same and was of the opinion that the applicant and three other delinquent employees, who belong to Treasuries Department, are not responsible for the irregular drawals of Government funds and it cannot be said that such an action was with an intention to defraud the Government and the personnel of the Treasuries Department are no way connected with this fraudulent activity as alleged against the respondent. Accordingly, the Deputy Director addressed detailed letter on 11.02.2008 itself requesting the Director to issue necessary orders in this regard. Thereafter, the Director himself has addressed letter dated 19.02.2008 requesting the Government to issue instructions in view of the above circumstances. Then the Government in Memo dated 07.05.2009 called for certain information and from then onwards the matter was under correspondence between the Deputy Director, Director and the Government, that too with a delay of an year at