THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.3697 OF 2024 AND CONTEMPT CASE No.1868 OF 2024

COMMON ORDER :

W.P.No.3697 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) declare the action of the respondents in not releasing 80%

Retirement Gratuity and Earned Leave amount as being arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India apart from being contrary to the second proviso to Rule 52 (1)(c) of T.S. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.1097, dt.22-06-2000 and orders passed by this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble High Court of AP in WP No.3427/2021, dt.18-02-2021, WP No.2545/2020, dt.24-02- 2020, WP No.30443/2016, dt.14-02-2017 and in IA No.1/2023 in WP No.5018/2023 dt.09-03-2023.

ii) consequently direct the respondents to release and pay 80%

Retirement Gratuity and Earned Leave amount in terms of second proviso to Rule 52 (1)(c) of T.S. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.1097 Finance & Planning Department, dt.22-06-2000 and the final and interim orders of this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble High Court of AP referred above iii) and pass…”

Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for willful and deliberate disobedience of the interim order, dated 15.02.2024, passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.3697 of 2024.

2. Heard Sri V.Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1; and Sri A.Veeresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, for respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Tracer on 20.03.1990 and subsequently, promoted as Manager and Deputy General Manager on 05.09.2002 and 06.08.2011 respectively. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from services on 31.10.2020. After the retirement, the respondents have sanctioned and released provisional pension, G.P.F. and T.G.L.I.S. However, retirement gratuity and earned leave amount were not paid to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings i.e., Crime No.04/ACB-CR/2013, dated 04.02.2013, which was registered against the petitioner basing on a false complaint. In connection with the same, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings, dated 11.03.2013 and was later reinstated into service vide G.O.Rt.No.1457, dated 27.09.2013. After filing of charge sheet, the case was numbered as C.C.No.47 of 2014 on the file of learned I Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. It is further submitted that as per proviso (2) of Rule 52 (1) (c) of the Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the petitioner is entitled to receive 80% retirement gratuity and the government issued G.O.Rt.No.1097, dated 22.06.2000, detailing the benefits that an employee is entitled to receive on his/her behalf, which indicates retirement gratuity and earned leave amount. However, there being any order of withholding of gratuity and earned leave amount and only on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid case, the respondents are not releasing earned leave amount and retirement gratuity to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.No.30443 of 2016 and High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.3427 of 2021, vide orders, dated 14.02.2017 and 18.02.2021 respectively, while interpreting the second proviso added to Rule 52(c) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980, in the year, 1995 vide G.O.Ms.No.227, dated 10.1