Point of Law: In the absence of any rule position, the rules of natural justice i.e., a show cause notice, a pre decisional hearing, should be given. For a middle class employee, the salary is the basic financial foundation on which he survives. The entire family depends upon the salary.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner before this Court is the former Secretary to the Speaker of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Due to the change in the government a new Speaker was elected. The petitioner, who was working as a Secretary on deputation to the Hon’ble Speaker was relieved and repatriated to his parent department. However, his salary has not been paid since then. The 2nd respondent did not issue the Last Pay Certificate of the petitioner. The reason for refusal by the 2nd respondent is the apparent failure of the petitioner to return certain furniture, electrical items which had been taken under his signature for the use of the Speaker. Since, these items are not returned in their entirety, the petitioner was denied his salary. Hence, the writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“….to issue a writ or order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus (a) declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not issuing my last pay certificate (LPC) as illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue my LPC and (b) declaring the action of the 4th to 6th respondents in not disbursing my monthly salary on the ground of non-issuance of LPC by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the 4th to 6th respondents to pay monthly salary to me even in the absence of LPC and basing on last pay drawn slips and pass such other and further orders in the interest of justice.”

2. This Court has heard Sri Posani Venkatwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Metta Chandra Sekhara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Legislature appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents, learned Government Pleader for School Education and learned Government Pleader for Services-III also appeared for the other respondents.

3. Sri Metta Chandra Sekhara Rao filed certain material papers and argued the matter on its merits. With the consent of all the learned counsel, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that he was only the Secretary to a dignitary. It is his primary contention that the material was received by the petitioner in the course of discharge of his duties as a Secretary and that he did not personally use or utilise the material. Therefore, he submits that the salary of the petitioner cannot be withheld. He also argues that there is no rule or law which permits the State to withheld the salary. He also argues that as the LPC was wrongly withheld, his salary was also withheld. Relying upon the Fundamental Rules and the Subsidiary Rules of the Andhra Pradesh Government learned counsel argues that the petitioner is entitled to draw his salary unless and until the same is withheld pursuant to a rule of law. He argues that the petitioner is entitled to his pay from the date he assumes office till he ceases to hold the office. He points out that no disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the consequence of events brings to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was relieved of duties in the peshi of the Hon’ble Speaker on 30.05.2019. He also points out that the petitioner directed to join duty as Assistant Academic Monitoring Officer to the RMSA, who functions under the 5th respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner joined duty on 26.06.2019. The Commissioner of School Education-4th respondent also requested the 2nd respondent to furnish the Last Pay Certificate in order to process the salary of the petitioner but the same was not given. The petitioner also made a representation dated 06.09.2019 and 30.10.2019 praying for payment of his salary but the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 06.11.2019. In which it is clarified that unless the articles are returned by the petitioner, the LPC cannot be issued. Therefore, learned counsel for the pe