The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the writ petitioner to interest on delayed retirement benefits, as supported by relevant case law and the Payment of Gratuity Act.

JUDGMENT :

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J.

Common arguments were advanced in these three matters. All these three writ appeal arise out of an order passed in W.P.No.13584 of 2021 dated 20.09.2022.

2. W.A.No.26 of 2023 is filed by the Agricultural Market Committee which is respondent No.3 in the writ petition against the above order.

3. W.A.No.1000 of 2022 is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh, who is the respondent No.1 in the said order.

4. W.A.No.952 of 2022 is filed by the writ petitioner questioning the award of interest by the learned single Judge at 9% instead of 14% in the said order.

5. This Court has heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri C.Sumon for the State of Andhra Pradesh and Sri B.Prakasam, learned standing counsel for the Agricultural Market Committee.

6. The facts in this case are not strictly in dispute. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming interest on the delayed payment of his retirement benefits.

7. Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel pointed out that just on the verge of writ petitioner’s retirement, two charge memos were issued to him on 22.11.2016 and 29.11.2016. His date of superannuation was 31.12.2016. After the matters were examined, both the charge memos were ultimately dropped. One charge memo was dropped on 12.05.2019 by issuing a memo and the 2nd charge was dropped on 28.01.2021. Thereafter, a total sum of Rs.42,45,909/- was paid to the writ petitioner on 23.02.2021. Claiming interest for the delayed payment, the writ petition was filed. The matter was heard and the writ petition was allowed with interest at 9% per annum on all the amounts due. Questioning the said judgment, W.A.No.26 of 2023 and W.A.No.1000 of 2022 are filed by the Agricultural Market Committee and the State of Andhra Pradesh respectively. Questioning the reduced interest awarded, the writ petitioner has filed W.A.No.952 of 2022.

8. Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the writ petitioner argued the matter at length and set out all the facts pointing out that the writ petitioner was victimized at every stage and that he had to fight a long legal battle to get his legitimate dues. In the present case, he points out that both the charges which were given on the verge of his retirement were finally dropped by the Government itself. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner is entitled to interest. A small booklet is filed with case law, which are as follows:

1. Deokindandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1409

2. State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan, AIR 1985 SC 356

3. Sk.Dua v. State of Haryana, 2008 (3) SCC 44

4. Bal Kishore Mody v. Arun Kumar Singh, 2001 (10) SCC 174

5. D.D.Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and others, 2014 (8) SCC 894

6. Union of India v. M.S.Abdulla, 2006 (6) SCC 455

7. Ex.Capt. R.S.Dhull v. State of Haryana and others, 1998 (4) SCC 379

9. Learned counsel submits that the learned single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition, but he submits that he should have ordered interest at 14% and therefore he prays that his appeal should be allowed while dismissing the writ appeals filed by the State and the Agricultural Market Committee.

10. Sri C.Sumon, learned counsel, argues in line with what is stated in the counter. He points out that the mere fact that the charges were dropped would not entitled the writ petitioner to claim interest from the date of his retirement. It is his contention that when allegations are made, the same have to be investigated and thereafter final decisions have to be taken. Since it is the Government and the machinery works in its own pace, after considering all the aspects final decisions were taken and the petitioner was exonerated. He also points out that pendency of various charges before the Commissioner of enquiries etc., is not denied and therefore it is clear that after examination only, the final conclusions were reached. He also points out that the amounts were paid immediately after decision was taken to drop the proceeding. He als