Pensionary benefits cannot be withheld indefinitely without formal disciplinary proceedings. Under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980, charges must be framed within four years of retirement; otherwise, the employee is entitled to full benefits.

ORDER:

Heard Sri S. Veda Vidyanatha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-I and Sri K. Bala Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in not releasing and paying the retirement benefits such as full pension and gratuity even after a lapse of eight years and two months after retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2017 as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to release the gratuity amount and full pension dues together with interest @ 14% per annum to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Sub-Registrar, Chandur, Nalgonda District, was retired from service on 30.11.2017 and his pension proposals were processed and verified by the Accountant General and Pension Verification Report was issued vide LR.No.AG(A&E)AP/P19/II/V-99/SP39/2018-04/179 dated 16.05.2018 and there is no legal impediment for release of his full pensionary benefits, but the respondent No.3 has issued proceedings No.A/1002/2007 dated 19.03.2019 stating that the pensionary benefits of the petitioner were not settled due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings and awaiting for NDC particulars and sanctioned only provisional pension of Rs.21,874/- i.e., 75% of service pension of Rs.29,165/- under Rule 9(4) and Rule 52 of the Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Rules, 1980’). He submits that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated or pending against the petitioner as on the date of his retirement and no charge memo was issued and no enquiry was initiated against him and the proceedings dated 19.03.2019 also do not disclose the particulars of alleged disciplinary case. However, after eight years of his retirement, the respondent No.3 has issued proceedings No.IAR/547/2017 dated 08.01.2025 stating that the petitioner was responsible for the loss of revenue in respect of four documents bearing Nos.3909/2016, 6662/2016, 6895/2016 and 5324/2016 and directed recovery of alleged loss.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that under Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1988 , the Collector is empowered to recover deficit stamp duty from the person liable to pay the same and under Section 48 , such duty is recoverable as arrears of land revenue through distress and sale of the movable properties of the person from whom the same are due and therefore, the alleged deficit duty if at all is recoverable from the parties to the documents and not from the registering authority and that too, by the date of the proceedings dated 08.01.2025, the petitioner was not in service. He submits that the respondents have illegally invoked Rule 9(4) and Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980, which can be resorted to only when disciplinary or judicial proceedings are instituted and pending as on the date of retirement, but no charge memo was issued and no disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner prior to his retirement. The respondent No.3 has issued proceedings dated 08.01.2025 nearly eight years after retirement of the petitioner in fastening liability in respect of certain documents registered during his tenure, which is impermissible under law and the liability cannot be retrospectively created after superannuation in the absence of disciplinary pro