JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services-IV representing the respondents 1 to 3.

2. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the substituted petitioners, of the original petitioner T. Nagamaleswaramma, widow of late T. Ramakrishna Rao (deceased employee).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that late T. Ramakrishna Rao, (father of the petitioners 2 and 3) was working as Extension Officer in the Panchayat Raj Department. He retired from service on 13.06.1994. After his retirement a charge memo No.11514/CPR-F1/94 dated 28.10.1995 was served to him containing four charges as per the Article of Charges. He submitted reply denying all the charges. Two criminal cases i.e C.C.No.19 of 2007 and 11 of 2007, were also instituted against the deceased employee, on the file of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. In view of the above cases, only provisional pension was released, but gratuity and other retiremental benefits were not paid to him T. Ramakrishna Rao died on 28.01.2007; consequently, CC No.19 of 2007 and CC No.11 of 2007 in which he was accused No.4 (A-4) and accused No.36 (A-36) respectively were dismissed as abated on 13.08.2007 and 28.08.2007 respectively. The departmental proceedings also abated vide Memo No.5332/EV/2017-1, dated 10.07.2017. The Government-1st respondent directed the Commissioner-R.2, to release the pensionary benefits to the legal heirs, duly recovering the loss caused to the Government, if any was established. The family pension was paid from October, 2007 to September, 2016, but all of sudden it was stopped without informing any order of such stoppage and since then inspite of various representations the matter remained pending, hence this writ petition was filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal cases ended as abated, there is no justification for the authorities to withhold and not to release the family pension and other unpaid retiral benefits of the deceased, which action is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He has placed reliance on Rule 9(7) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Depatment vs. M. Veeramma1.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-IV does not dispute dismissal of the criminal cases as abated nor the abatement of the disciplinary proceedings against the deceased employee. However, he submits that the abatement of the disciplinary proceeding was subject to the condition that the loss caused to Government, if any, determined on the outcome of those two criminal cases, which are still pending against other accused persons, shall be recoverable from the legal heirs of the deceased. He submits that such condition in the order of abating the departmental proceedings is not under challenge. He further submits that initially, undertaking was given by the original petitioner (widow of the deceased employee) T. Nagamalleswaramma, that she will be liable to pay the amount that will be paid towards pension, family pension and arrears of pension and other death benefits if the loss caused to the government if any is determined, which undertaking came to an end on her death on 03.07.2020. The undertaking given by T. Baburao petitioner No.2 was not considered, vide letter dated 16.08.2021 of the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur who asked

1 2017 (6) ALD 726

petitioner No.2 to modify the undertaking given and re-submit the same but any modified undertaking was not re-submitted and consequently the proposal for sanction of the family pension etc. could not be forwarded to the Accountant General (A&E), A.P., Vijayawada. Applicability of Rule 9(7) of the Rules 1980 has not been disputed by the learned Government Pleader.

6. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. The c