THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in

the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 1^st Respondent in not sanctioning Pension, Gratuity, leave encashment salary and other retrial benefits to the Petitioner, as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently, direct 1^st Respondent to forthwith sanction Pension, Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension and Leave Encashment Salary to which Petitioner is entitled for his (42) years qualifying service, together with interest @ 18% per annum from 01.07.2024 to till payment is made to the

Petitioner…”

2. Heard Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned Standing Counsel

for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Housing Engineer (Assistant Engineer) in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Housing Board vide proceedings dated 11.05.1982, and his services were duly regularized within the prescribed period and his probation was declared accordingly. Subsequently, through a chain of promotions, the petitioner was finally promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f., 13.08.2020. Thereafter, on 16.12.2023,

respondent No.1 sent a letter, according permission for retirement of the petitioner upon his attaining the superannuation age of 61 years, which was duly accepted by respondent No.2, and consequential orders vide G.O.Rt.No.342 dated 12.03.2024, were issued, permitting the petitioner to retire from service. Pursuant thereto, petitioner accordingly retired from service on 30.06.2024, and he was directed to handover the charge of Superintending Engineer, Hyderabad Circle-II, to one Mr. S. Srinivas, Executive Engineer, who was designated as Superintending Engineer, Hyderabad Circle-II (FAC).

4. It is further submitted that in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.342 dated 12.03.2024, the petitioner submitted his pension application to respondent No.3 herein on 30.03.2024, in the prescribed proforma, along with a covering letter, requesting to process and sanction the service pension, retirement gratuity, and other retirement benefits. Thereafter, the said pension application was forwarded by the Chief Engineer to the Chief Accounts Officer, with an endorsement dated 02.04.2024. While all the other employees who retired along with the petitioner and later, were sanctioned service pension, gratuity, and other benefits, the petitioner’s case was kept pending without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the petitioner enquired about the same and was orally informed that the sanction of pension application was under process and necessary orders would be issued soon. However, since no information was received from almost six months after his retirement, he submitted his detailed representation to respondent No.1 on 23.01.2025, requesting the sanction of pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits, for which he is entitled to for his (42) years of unblemished service. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a reminder representation dated 24.02.2025, to respondent No.1, reiterating his request for the sanction of pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits. However, despite a lapse of almost eight months, the petitioner has not received a response from the respondent.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner has rendered more than (42) years of qualifying and unblemished service in the respondent Board, and no departmental proceedings were ever instituted against him during his services. As such, there is no valid reason for respondent No.1 to withhold/delay the sanction and payment of pension, commuted value of pension, and all other monetary benefits, including leave encashment salary, to which the petitioner is entitled. It is submitted that as per Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of