APHC010295352012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 32658/2012 Between: Nandigam Chandra Sekhar Rao, ...PETITIONER AND Mandasa Primary Agricultural Cooperative Soceity and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A PADMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) 2. K SRINIVAS MURTHY (SC FOR N T P C) 3. GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner is challenging the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in not releasing his retirement benefits i.e., gratuity, earned leave encashment and provident to fund and consequently seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to release of his retirement benefits. 2 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner worked as a secretary in the 1st respondent-society and attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2011. It is submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 28.02.2004 framed certain by-laws which came into force in the year 2006 and the 1st respondent-society adapted the staffing pattern and service conditions of the registered by-laws. It is further submitted that as per the said by-law, the petitioner is entitled for gratuity amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as well as leave encashment and provident fund, but the same was denied by the respondents which is under challenge in the writ petition. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner was dismissed from services on 09.11.2004 and a new secretary was appointed in his place. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for payment of gratuity on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2011 does not arise by virtue of the resolution dated 09.11.2004 passed by the 1st respondent-Society, as his services were dismissed much prior to the adaption of the service conditions. The petitioner has not challenged the earlier proceedings of termination. 4. Learned Standing Counsel on counter further submitted that the petitioner filed W.P.No.23878 of 2009 seeking release of his retirement benefits and the said writ petition was disposed on 06.07.2012. 5. Perused the record. 6. The petitioner has not challenged the proceedings of termination dated 09.11.2004 and as on date the said proceedings remain unchallenged. The 3 petitioner has also not placed before this Court the copy of the said proceedings. It is also not explained in the writ affidavit as to whether the petitioner was reinstated into the services after 09.11.2004 or the petitioner remained out of service till he attained the age of superannuation. The question of payment of gratuity and other service benefits would arise only when the petitioner has completed his services without any blemish. 7. Considering the submissions that the petitioner has suppressed the facts and also about filing of the Writ Petition vide W.P.No.23878 of 2009 which was disposed on 06.07.2012, this Court finds no reason to interfere and pass any direction to the respondents. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 25th February, 2025 RKS