APHC010396042024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) i-'" r THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ’ WRIT PETITION NO: 20245 OF 2024 - Between: Syed Munawar Basha, S/o Late Syed Mansoor Aged 66 years, Retired as Assistant Director of Agriculture, Vizianagaram, r/o F Block 501, Sri Aditya Athena, Manikonda, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER V.'- AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Agriculture And Cooperation Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Old Mirchi Yard, Nallapadu Raod, Chuttagunta, Guntur. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order Or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the respondents in withholding petitioner's Retirement benefits w.e.f 31-3-2018 on mere pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2011, filed against his acquittal orders CC No. 13 of 2006, Dated 28-1- 2010, contrary to Rule 52 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules 1980, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, also in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents herein to release all Retirement benefits i.e. Full Pension . Retirement Gratuity, commutation of Pension with 10 percent respondents to release all other consequential benefits, in terms of the settled law reported in 2018(3)ALT 91 and W.P.No.6474 of 2021 and W.P.No.19785 of 2021 immediately. Encashment of Earned Leave amount along with interest, and also direct the f lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay Consequential benefits after retirement along with 10% interest on the delayed payments, in terms of the reported judgment in 2018(3) ALT 91, pending disposal of the above writ petition. 'V Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHILAMKURTHI SATYA DEV NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order: 9 APHC010396042024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) r "T... t-- g- [3460] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 20245/2024 Between: 1.SYED MUNAWAR BASHA, S/0 LATE SYED MANSOOR AGED 66 YEARS, RETIRED AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, VIZIANAGARAM, R/0 F BLOCK 501, SRI ADITYA ATHENA, MANIKONDA, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, OF AGRICULTURE, OLD MIRCHI YARD, NALLAPADU RAOD, CHUTTAGUNTA, GUNTUR. ...RESPONDENT{S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order Or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the respondents in withholding petitioner's Retirement benefits w.e.f. 31-3-2018 on mere pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2011 filed against his acquittal orders C.C.No.13 of 2006, 2 Dated 28-1- 2010, contrary to Rule 52 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, also in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents herein to release all Retirement benefits i.e. Full Pension, Retirement Gratuity, Encashment of Earned Leave amount along with commutation of Pension with 10 percent interest, and also direct the respondents to release all other consequential benefits, in terms of the settled law reported in 2018 (3) ALT 91 and W.P.No.6474 of 2021 and W.P.No.19785 of 2021 immediately, and to pass such other order. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay Consequential benefits after retirement along with 10% interest the delayed payments, in terms of the reported judgment in 2018(3) ALT 91, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and to pass such other order. on Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CHILAMKURTHI SATYA DEV NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.20245 of 2024 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondents in withholding the retirement benefits of the Petitioner with effect from 31.03.2018 on the ground of pendency of Criminal Appeal No.301 of 2011 filed against the acquittal Judgment delivered by the Special Judgement for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.13 of 2006, dated 28.01.2010, as contrary to Rule 52 of Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as 2. follows; The Petitioner while working as Assistant Director in Agriculture Department, an ACB case was registered against him vide Cr.No.01/RC-ACBA/ZM/2005 under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w Section 13(1)(b) of Anti Corruption Act, 1980 which was numbered as C.C.No.13 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. On, conclusion of trial, the Petitioner was acquitted of the said offences vide Judgment dated 28.01.2010 passed by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. Subsequently, the Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2018. However, the retirement benefits were 2 not being paid to the Petitioner on the ground that a Criminal Appeal No.301 of 2011 is filed before this Court by the ACB questioning the acquittal Judgment delivered in C.C.No.13 of 2006. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that once the order of acquittal is passed, the retirement benefits cannot be retained by the Respondent authorities on the ground of pendency of Criminal Appeal. The counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Chief Commissioner of Land Administrative A.P., v. R.S.R. Rao^ to that 4. effect. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the full retirement benefits were not released to the Petitioner as the Criminal Appeal is pending and only the provisional pension and 75% of the gratuity were released. 6. Having heard the respective counsel, the issue in this case is squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment reported in 2010 (2) ALD 773. The relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted below; 2010 (2) ALD 773 (DB) 3 % As per Rute 52(1)(c) of the Pension Rules, the Government ,s empowered to withhold gratuity till the final orders are passed either depadmental or judicial proceedings. Once final orders are the Government to 18. in the passed, there is no provision that empowers withhold retirement benefits. The ifnal orders, as indicated in sub-rules (b) and (c) of Rule the orders to be passed by the departmental or judicial favour of 19. 52(1) of the Pension Rules, are conclusion of the department upon proceedings, delinquent employee, there is the disciplinary authority by the required to be passed for . Once the departmental proceedings end in question of agitating the orders of department itself Therefore, the final the purpose of payment of no orders are retirement benefits. concerned, the department has be said that the judicial the criminal Court be the conclusion of the 20. Insofar as the criminal cases are got a right to file an appeal. But, it cannot not been concluded. Once have accused. It must amount to proceedings acquits the judicial proceedings against the acquittal criminal proceedings. The same Therefore, the appeals filed continuation of in the first instance, orders cannot be treated as view was taken by a Division Bench West Bengal's case (supra). State of of Calcutta High Court in referred, to above. Para 9 lof the said judgment reads as follows. the effect that pendency of the continuation of the The submission of Mr. Chakraboriy to acquittal will amount to appeal against nmceedinqs cannot be accepted, Continuation of the proceedings relate to investigation, enguiry or trial, and such, invest,gatton end with the judgment ot must enquiry or trial, if any, acquittal. The same misconceived, only on the ground that have come to an IS being continuing in the instant case, appeal there against is an 4 pending. If the respondent No. 1 is convicted by the Appeal Court for commission of a criminal offence, sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules would be attracted. Keeping in weiV the fact that different sub rules of Rules 3 operate in different fields, we are of the opinion that sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 be held to be operative only in the case namely, when an investigation enguiry or trial remains pending and not when the employee person Is acquitted. The situations obtaining under different sub-rule being absolutely different, in our opinion, sub rule (3) of Rule 3 must be given a restrictive interpretation." or 21. If the appeal is not in continuation | of original criminal proceedings, the order of acquittal is a final order within the ambit of Rule 52 of the Pension Rules, referred to above. After the orders of acquittal passed by the criminal Court, as already stated above, there Is no power for the Government to withhold pension or retirement benefits. The said benefits, therefore, are liable to be paid immediately after acquittal order. ” 22. If the appeal or revision proceedings are in continuation of the criminal proceedings, there will be no end for the litigation and the employees, who have been acquitted honourably, shall not get retirement benefits till conclusion of all appeals, revisions, special leave petitions etc. Appeal against acquittal, not being continuation of original criminal proceedings, Rule 52 as above, will not be available to Government for withholding retirement benefits. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was correct in passing the impugned order and we do not see any error committed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 24. 5 25. Insofar as awarding of interest in OA No. 7027 of 2006, which is the subject-matter of WP No. 22929 of 2009, is concerned, withholding of pension or gratuity during pendency of the criminal proceedings is justified in the light of Rule 52 of the Pension Rules, referred to above, and after the acquittal, the employee is entitled to all retirement benefits and consequently, if the said benefits are not paid on acquittal of the employee of the criminal charges, there is no reason why the Government should not be made liable for paying interest over retirement benefits from the date of acquittal. Therefore, we do not see any illegality in awarding Interest @ 8% per annum on the retirement benefits from the date of acquittal. ” 7. In view of the above, the pendency of Criminal Appeal would not be a bar for releasing retirement benefits, which were held up on account of criminal case. Thq Writ Petition is therefore allowed with the following directions; (i) The Respondents are directed to forthwith release the retirement benefits with applicable interest to the Petitioner without reference to the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.301 of 2011 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order; (ii) No order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- WI.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Chief Secretary, Agriculture And Cooperation Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Old Mirchi Yard, Nallapadu Raod, Chuttagunta, Guntur. 3. One CC to Sri Chilamkurthi Satya Dev Naidu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Services-ll, High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OUT] 5. Two CD Copies. •^v ssb HIGH COURT DATED:21/08/2025 ORDER WP No. 20245 OF 2024 g( 12 SEP 2025 ’ o\ ml Sectioi^xV^ ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS