Point of Law: non-payment of leave salary and pension to retired employees is deprivation of a citizen in right to property. Such deprivation is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 and Constitutional Right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and Human Rights of livelihood as per Article 25(1) of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, since the government servants after retirement being pensioners would be deprived of their livelihood, though they are under obligation to meet different expenses, including maintaining their health condition for the rest of their life.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :-

“….to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in withholding the retirement benefits of the petitioner in the absence of any valid disciplinary proceedings as on date, and the Charge Memos in TEC No.116/13, TEC No.136/2013 and TEC No.172/2013, dated 21.06.2017, 25.09.2017 and 27.11.2017 respectively issued by the 3rd respondent, stand quashed by this Court vide Orders passed in W.P.Nos.14565, 14566 and 14567 of 2019, dated 25.09.2019, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of provisions of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and consequently direct the respondents to release all the pensionery benefits viz., full pension, retirement gratuity and encashment of Earned Leave and other benefits together with 12% interest from the date of retirement till the date of payment, and pass such other order.”

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was allowed to retire from service in the category of Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Vijayawada, pending the Charge Memos in TEC 116/2013, 136/2013 and 172/2013 pertaining to the same incident in different places of work related to the year 2012 (liquor syndicate cases). As per G.O.Ms.No.679 the Government has fixed a maximum time limit of six (06) months for conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings pending against the employees. In terms of the said Government Order, when there is no progress in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.Nos.14565/2019, 14566/2019 and 14567/2019 to fix up time limit for conclusion and this Court was pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within three months, failing which the Charge Memos shall stand quashed. Despite issuing such direction, the respondents did not conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the time frame fixed by this Court, thereby the Charge Memos are automatically deemed to have been quashed. Non-payment of retirement benefits subsequent to the expiry of three months from the date of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.14565/2019, 14566/2019 and 14567/2019, is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction to the respondents to pay retirement benefits including full pension, retirement gratuity and encashment of Earned Leave and other benefits together with 12% interest from the date they become due to the petitioner till the date of payment.

3. Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the main petition, whereas learned Government Pleader for Services-I filed a memo informing that against the order in W.P.Nos.14565/2019, dated 25.09.2019, a writ appeal is preferred by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B, Guntur in E-filing No.AP/2/WA/33634/19-12-2020, it is not yet registered, and the same is intimated by memo dated 27.01.2021. On the basis of the said memo dated 27.01.2021, the learned Government Pleader requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition, as the writ appeal is pending for consideration.

4. Undisputedly, the petitioner is retired from service as Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Vijayawada during pendency of three Charge Memos in TEC 116/2013, 136/2013 and 172/2013 pertaining to the same incident in different places of work, related to the year 2012 (liquor syndicate cases). The Charge Memos are pending since a long time the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.14565/2019, 14566/2019 and 14567/2019 and these writ petitions are disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court, with a direction to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners in all the three cases, within three months, failing which the Charge Memos are deemed to be quashed. Therefore, due to aut