ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, declaring that the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not releasing the service benefits of the petitioner i.e, Rs.10,76,030/- from 1982 to 23.07.1998 along with 36% interest from 23.07.1998 till date and compensation of Rs.15,00,00/- for mental agony and hardship in spite of the order passed by the respondent No.2 in award dated 19.11.1990 in ID No.113 of 1990 by the Labour Court and G.O.Rt.No.2992 dated 03.12.1990 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh as illegal, arbitrary and to consequently, direct the respondent to release the said benefits immediately by paying along with compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the mental agony and undue delay.

2. The facts leading to filing of the present in brief are as follows:

a. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk Grade-II in the company of the respondent No.4/Andhra Cements on 01.01.1967. Thereupon, on some complaints, he was placed under suspension on 29.06.1982 and ultimately, he was discharged from service on 23.07.1998. An enquiry has been conducted and charges are proved. Dissatisfying with the explanation of the petitioner, he was discharged from service by striking of his name from the rolls of the company.

b. The petitioner has challenged the discharge order, and approached the competent authority under Section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 in S.E.Case No.AP C 16/82 and by order dated 10.10.1983, the same was dismissed by the Authority.

c. Questioning the same, the petitioner has preferred SA 63/1983, which was allowed by this Court directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. The respondent No.4-company filed W.P.No.15852 of 1987 and this Court passed an interim order W.P.M.P.No.21097 of 1987 directing the respondent company to deposit half of the service benefits in this Court and on such deposit, the petitioner had withdrawn the same.

d. By order dated 18.02.1998 this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to follow Rule 20(3) of the A.P.S.E.Rules and set aside the order of reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages and held that the petitioner would be deemed to be in service but under suspension and observed that it is open to the respondent to pass fresh orders on the basis of the enquiry report.

e. The respondent passed office order dated 23.07.1980 repeating the first office order of discharge dated 27.09.1982 and discharged the petitioner from service by considering the provisions of Rule 20(3) of the A.P.S.E.Rules as directed by this Court.

f. The petitioner filed I.D.No.113 of 1990 to set aside the order dated 23.07.1988 passed by the respondent in Proceedings reference No. Personnel 1/2474/88/1 and to direct the respondent to reinstate him with all back wages and attendant benefits. The Labour Court, Hyderabad by Order dated 19.11.1990 passed an award directing the respondent company to reinstate the petitioner with half of the back wages from the date of his suspension i.e., from 29.06.1982 till the date of reinstatement and made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to the remaining half of the back wages.

g. In spite of several representations made to the respondents for release of the amounts and in spite of the orders of the Court of law, the respondent company did not consider the request of the petitioner.

h. As on the date of retirement of the petitioner, he is entitled to Rs.10,76,030/- towards salary, gratuity benefits, ALCH, casual leave, LTA etc, along with interest at 36% per annum from 23.07.1998 and Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and undue delay on the part of respondents. The petitioner is now at his old age suffering from psoriasis and other ailments. The petitioner initially approached respondents 2 and 3 by filing an execution petition, which was returne