APHC010351312018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16429/2018 Between: S.THIRUPATHAIAH, S/O.LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,OCC. SENIOR SPECIAL ASSISTANT, R/O.25-2-543, 4TH LANE EXTENSION, NEW MILITARY COLONY, VEDAPALEM, NELLORE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP.BY THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL OFFICE, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGERAGM, STATE BANK OF INDIA, NELLORE TOWN BRANCH, NELLORE- 524001. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, NELLORE 4. THE DY GENERAL MANAGER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, GUNTUR 5. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY UNDER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VENKAT RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B S PRASAD 2. HARINATH N (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) 3. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: 2 “.... a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 4 to the extent of adjusting the Gratuity and Provident Fund amounts payable to the petitioner towards the loan accounts mentioned in Annexure to the letter in reference No./27 dated 19-2- 2018 on the file of 2nd respondent as highly unfair, illegal, unreasonable and contrary to section 15.7(h) of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Rule 9 (d) of State Bank of India Employee Gratuity Fund Rules and Regulations and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to pay the Gratuity and Provident Fund to the petitioner without adjusting the same towards loan accounts.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri B.S.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents would submit that they have complied with the interim order dated 11.07.2018 and released the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards gratuity to the Petitioner, within the time frame i.e., in the month of August, 2018. 3. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, none represented for the Petitioner. 4. In the light of the representation made by the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:11.03.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.16429 of 2018 Dt.11.03.2025 Dinesh