APHC010203502019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 8824/2019 Between: 1. PELLURI RAVI BABU, S/O P. KAMESWARA SARMA, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC- POST GRADUATE TEACHER, NLVRGSRV SCHOOL, NIMMAKURU VILLAGE, PAMARRU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. SRINVASULA SRINIVASA CHARYULU, S/O S. LAKSHMANA CHARYULU, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC- TRAINDED GRADUATE TEACHER, NLVRGSRV SCHOOL, NIMMAKURU VILLAGE, ANDHRA PRADESH RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (APRS), TADIKONDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. VANKA BHANU PRASAD, S/O V. NANCHARAIAH, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC- JUNIOR LECTURER, LVRGSRV JUNIOR COLLEGE, NIMMAKURU VILLAGE, PAMARRU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. PELLURI RAMA DEVI, W/O P. RAVI BABU, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO. 4-238/2, MARUTHI NAGAR, NAVULURU VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, VELAGAPUDI, THULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE A P RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY APREIS, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, 3RD AND 4TH FLOORS, PAMULAPATI SIVAIAH COMPLEX, NAIDUPETA, KORITIPADU, GUNTUR CITY AND DISTRICT, A.P. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, A.P. RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (BOYS), PULIGADDA VILLAGE, AVANIGADDA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER STO, AVANIGADDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT LIMITED, REP. BY IT'S BRANCH MANAGER -CUM- FOREMAN, ELURU ROAD, GUDIVADA TOWN AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. MR MOKKAPATI SREEDHAR, S/O M. BHASKARA SARMA, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC- RETD. EMPLOYEE (PGTSS), A.P. RESIDENTIAL 2 SCHOOL (BOYS), PULIGADDA VILLAGE, AVANIGADDA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. NOW R/O FLAT NO. B-102, SRI CHAKRA EDEN GREEN, 15TH CROSS ROAD, UPADYAYA NAGAR, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GADE VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. L V S NAGARAJU (SC FOR APREIS) 2. GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) 4. CHALASANI AJAY KUMAR 5. P DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not releasing the pensionary benefits in pursuance of the proceedings in Rc.No.2379/131- 1/SP/2018, dated 15-03-2019 of 3rd respondent and proceedings of the 5th respondent No.APREIS/KNA/746/2019, dated 25-03-2019 duly considering the petitioner's representation dated 17-06-2019 made to 4th respondent along with other retirement benefits, as illegal, arbitrary, whimsical, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and in breach of circular memo No.1469/62/Al/PEN.1/2010, Finance (Pen.I) Dept, dated 03-08-2010 of Principal Account General, (A and E), A.P. Hyderabad and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4. particularly the 4th respondent to release the pension to petitioner forth with duly issuing 1st pension certificate to the petitioner.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 3 and Respondent No.6 are working as Teachers. It is submitted that, believing the words of Respondent No.6, the Petitioners stood as sureties on behalf of Respondent No.6 to Respondent No.5. Learned counsel would further submit that, Respondent No.6 had taken the prize money from Respondent No.5. As Respondent No.6 failed to discharge the amount, the matter was referred to arbitration in A.C.P.No.19 of 2018. Though Respondent No.6 assured to the Petitioners that he will settle the matter with Respondent No.5 as he is taking V.R.S and asked the Petitioners not to appear before the Arbitrator. Learned counsel would submit that, believing the words of Respondent No.6, the Petitioners did not attend before the Arbitrator. Respondent No.5 got attached the retirement benefits of Respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 also submitted his consent letter to attach his entire retirement benefits. Learned counsel would submit that, surprisingly, the Petitioners received notices in E.P.No.51 of 2019, which was filed on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada showing the warrant amount as Rs.9,36,100/-. Learned counsel would further submit that, in collusion with Respondent No.6, Respondent No.5 filed the E.P ignoring the earlier attachment. Though the Petitioners approached Respondent No.3 to initiate action against Respondent No.6, they expressed their inability since Respondent No.6 made a complaint before the District Collector that he was forced to sign on the stamp paper. Learned counsel would submit that, a direction may be given to Respondent No.3 to initiate disciplinary action against Respondent No.6 for filing the E.P through Respondent No.5, to protect the interest of the Petitioners. It is further 4 submitted that the Petitioners are sureties and they have nothing to do with the liability of Respondent No.6, which is due to Respondent No.5. 3. Sri Ravi Kumar Ponakampalli, Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3 would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 would submit that, after obtaining the award in A.C.P.No.19 of 2018, Respondent No.5 filed E.P.No.51 of 2019. It is further submitted that the liability of the sureties is co-extensive with the Judgment Debtor. If the Petitioners have any grievance, they can work out their remedies against Respondent No.6 before appropriate forum but not by way of present writ petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it is purely a civil matter. Admittedly, the Petitioners are the sureties for the amount which was drawn from Respondent No.5 by Respondent No.6. Though a representation was made to Respondent No.3 for taking action against Respondent No.6, they expressed their helplessness stating that Respondent No.6 made a complaint to the District Collector that Respondent No.5 forcibly obtained his signatures in a wrongful way. Be that as it may, Respondent No.5 obtained award as per law and they have also filed Execution Petition against Respondent No.6 and the Petitioners. The Petitioners can work out their remedies against Respondent No.6 before appropriate forum. In that view, this petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:05.03.2025 Dinesh 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.8824 of 2019 Dt.05.03.2025 Dinesh