JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. This writ appeal is posted for hearing on admission. However, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, we proceeded to decide the matter finally.

2. The writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.03.2021 passed in W.P. No. 3421 of 2021. By the said order, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the encashment of earned leave amount and 80% of retirement gratuity, on account of pendency of C.C. No. 39 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in terms of G.O.Rt. No. 1097 Finance and Planning (FW Pen. I) Department, dated 22.06.2000, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and for a consequential direction to the respondents to release encashment of earned leave amount along with 80% of retirement gratuity of the writ petitioner in terms of similar orders dated 14.02.2017 in W.P. No. 30443 of 2016 and dated 24.02.2020 in W.P. No. 2545 of 2020.

3. The writ petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2011 while he was serving as Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police. During his continuation in the service, the officials of Anti-Corruption Bureau registered a trap case against him on 30.07.2021, and thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed against him which is now registered as C.C. No. 39 of 2011 pending trial in the Special Court for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada. Since on account of pendency of criminal case, the petitioner was not paid gratuity nor allowed to seek encashment of Earned Leave, he has submitted representation dated 09.01.2020 on the strength of G.O.Rt. No. 1097 dated 22.06.2000. The representation was kept pending, therefore, the writ petition was preferred seeking the aforesaid relief.

4. The official respondents defended the same on the strength of clause (c) sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules 1980 (for short “the Rules, 1980”). According to them, G.O.Rt. No. 1097 dated 22.06.2000 has no application where the gratuity is withheld due to pendency of judicial proceedings.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I reiterated the stand of the official respondents and would take us to the text of Rule 52(1)(c) of the Rules, 1980 as well G.O.Rt. No. 1097 dated 22.06.2000. He would submit that learned single Judge has not considered the application of G.O.Rt. No. 1097 in proper perspective nor Rule 52(1)(c) has been given effect in its true sense.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would support the impugned order. He would also refer to the order passed by the Division Bench of common High Court in W.P. No. 30443 of 2016. According to him, proviso to clause (c) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980 clearly empowers the official respondents to release 80% of the eligible retirement gratuity despite pendency of the judicial proceedings.

7. At the outset, it would be appropriate to reproduce clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980, hereunder:

“52. Provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceeding may be pending:

(1) (a)........................

(b).............................

(c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders:

Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Control Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1991, for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 9 of the said rules, except the cases falling under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the Government servant.

Provided further that notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) above, where a conclusion has been reached that a po