Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Dasari Nagaraju - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.19438 of 2022 & 21912 of 2022
Decided on : 28-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
For the Respondent: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
Pension is a property right protected under Article 300A of the Constitution, and withholding it without statutory authority is illegal.
Headnote:
(A) A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 - Rule 9(2)(b) - Right to receive pension - The petitioner, a retired Assistant Director, challenged the withholding of his pension based on allegations from a vigilance report. The court found that the respondents failed to consider a subsequent report that absolved the petitioner of wrongdoing. The court emphasized that pension is a property right protected under Article 300A of the Constitution. (Paras 18, 19)
(B) Administrative actions - The court ruled that administrative instructions cannot override statutory provisions regarding pension entitlements. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner executed a lease deed in 2004, faced allegations in 2016, and was allowed to retire in 2019. The subsequent vigilance report in 2019 modified earlier findings against him.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the withholding of pension was illegal and arbitrary, ordering full pension to be paid.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the pension withholding and the application of the vigilance reports.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents acted without proper consideration of the subsequent vigilance report and emphasized the constitutional protection of pension rights.
Result: Writ petitions allowed, impugned orders set aside.
ORDER :
As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.
2. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.19438 of 2022 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, while the petitioner was working as Assistant Director of Mines & Geology for Srikakulam, he executed a lease deed acting on behalf of the Government dated 23.2.2004 in favour of M/s Trimex Industries Ltd. After long lapse of time, certain allegations were made by the 2nd respondent in his vigilance report No.17(C.No.888/V&E/NR/2014), dated 11.3.2016 stating that the petitioner has submitted an explanation that the District Collector, Srikakulam has granted revenue clearance for 10 Sq.KMs for prospecting license. The same area was granted for mining lease in favour of M/s Trimex Industries Ltd., and thus the same NOC holds good and also stated that precautionary measures taken during the execution of lease deed duly incorporating all the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.31 of Industries & Commerce, dated 6.2.2004, and therefore, there is no fault on the petitioner’s side. But the said explanation was not accepted by merely stating that the same is not tenable. In the said report, it was also stated that Clause (e) contains findings. A close perusal of the same shows that at serial No.1 that an allegation has been made against the petitioner that he has executed the lease before obtaining the clearance from Revenue, Forest Department and Patta holders against the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 6.2.2004 without furnishing any material particulars. At Clause No.5 it is stated that the official of Mines & Geology Department had allowed mining operations and issued transmit permissions for transportation. Challenging the said report dated 11.3.2016 the petitioner filed WP No.44571 of 2018 before this Court and the same was disposed of and directed the respondents No.2 and 4 to reconsider the report dated 11.3.2016 in the light of the subsequent report of the District Collector, dated 17.11.2018, the District Collector had stated that Ac 387.72 cents of Vatsavalasa village of Gara Mandal, Srikaulam is not a revenue land and it belongs to Forest Department. Pursuant to the said directions of this Court, the 2nd respondent has submitted a fresh report dated 21.03.2019. Basing on the above report dated 21.03.2019 the 3rd respondent issued proceedings Lr.No.18314/E1/1984 dated 13.12.2019 vide letter addressed to the Accountant General, who is 4th respondent herein stating that the Government has sanctioned provisional pension 75% vide G.O.Rt.No.318 dated 26.11.2019 under Rule 52(1)(a)&(b) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
While the things stood thus, the 1st respondent without application of mind and without reference to the subsequent vigilance report dated 21.3.2019 where under the earlier vigilance report dated 11.3.2016 was modified to the effect that the decision to take necessary action against the officials has to be reviewed. Such a review exercise has not been undertaken prior to issuance of the impugned G.O.Rt.No.154, dated 28.6.2019 under which the petitioner was allowed to retire from service. the said G.O.Rt.No.154, dated 28.6.2019 only refers to the earlier vigilance report dated 11.3.2016 but not the subsequent vigilance report dated 21.3.2019 though it was available as on 28.6.2019. Later G.O.Rt No.318, dated 26.11.2019 has been issued post retirement of the petitioner on 30.06.2019. the petitioner mainly contended that as per the provisions contained in the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, he is entitled for full pension and the respondents do not have any right to withhold his pension in part of in hold. Though the petitioner has submitted a detailed representations dated 5.6.2018, 25.2.2019, 18.2.2022 and 22.6.2022 claim
