IMPORTANT POINT
The amendment to Rule 52(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules entitles a retired government servant to 80% of retirement gratuity despite pending criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

(K. Manmadha Rao, J.)

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

"to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the Encashment of Earned Leave along with 80% Retirement Gratuity on mere pendency of (1) FIR No. 11/2017 dated 1.6.201, (2) FIR No. 163/2017, Dated 18.05.2017, (3) FIR No. 202/2017 dated 2.7.2017 and FIR No. 203/2017 dated 2.7.2017 pending without any progress, withholding the payments contrary to the Rule 52(C) II Proviso of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules and also contrary to the existing Rules G.O.Rt. No. 1097 Finance and Planning (FW Pen.I) Department, Dated 22.06.2000 as illegal, arbitrary discriminatory in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to release Encashment of Earned Leave along with 80% of Retirement Gratuity to the petitioner pending FIRs. in term of G.O.Rt. No. 1097, dated 22.06.2000 and similar Orders passed in W.P. No. 2545 of 2020 Dated 24.02.2020 and W.P. No. 3829 of 2021, dated 18.02.2021 and Division Bench Orders passed in W.P. No. 30443 of 2016, dated 14.02.2017 and pass such other order or orders......."

2. The brief case of the petitioner he was joined as Junior Assistant in Revenue Department on 29.07.1980 and on promotions he was promoted as Tahsildar on 07.08.2008 and he was allowed to retire from service on 30.06.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation, in the category of Gazetted Superintendent, Office of Collectorate, Srikakulam. Consequent on his retirement, the 2nd respondent sanctioned the petitioner Provisional Pension by duly invoking Rule 52(1)(a)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 read with G.O.Ms. No. 360, dated 31.05.2001 on the ground that as per the report of the District Collector, Srikakulam, dated 15.11.2018, two disciplinary cases are pending against the petitioner. During pendency of above cases, the petitioner is entitled to claim 80% of his Retirement Gratuity in terms of the following Rule 52 of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and G.O.Rt. No. 1097, dated 22.06.2000, but the respondents did not consider the request of the petitioner inspite of several representations. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed and requested to allow the same.

3. Heard Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherla Kota, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-I for the respondents.

4. During hearing, Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, learned counsel for the petitioner, while drawing the attention of this Court to G.O.Rt. No. 1097, dated 22.06.2000 which permits the petitioner to get encashment of Earned Leave amount and also to get 80% retirement Gratuity. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 30443 of 2016, dated 14.02.2017 and also to the Orders passed by the Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 2545 of 2020, dated 24.02.2020, which is followed by the judgment of the Division Bench, wherein it is directed to the respondents therein to release encashment of Earned Leave and also to pay 80% retirement gratuity to the petitioner therein and requested to issue appropriate direction to the respondents to release encashment of Earned Leave amount along with payment of 80% retirement gratuity to the petitioner herein strictly adhering to 2nd Proviso of Rule 52(c) of Revised Pension Rules, 1980, judgments and G.O referred above.

5. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I mainly contended that while the criminal cases are pending against him, the petitioner is not entitled to clam for release of retirement gratuity, while placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in "R. Veerabhadram vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh " (1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 43 and on the strength of the principal laid down therein the l