1 APHC010547422018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 26477/2018 Between: T.Kotaiah and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) 2. . 3. V CH NAIDU SC FOR APEWIDC The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 26477 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue appropriate Writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the petitioners retirement benefits by including PRC 2015, inspite of petitioners clear entitlement and eligibility as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioners retirement benefits in accordance with the amounts fixed in Proceedings Lr. Rc. No.SA/1/Estt /APEWIDC/2011 dated 09.05.2018 by including PRC 2015 along with 18 percent interest to pass…” 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-corporation. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no dispute about the entitlement of the petitioners regarding the encashment of leave and gratuity. The amount is also determined by the authorities including PRC, 2015. But still the petitioners could not get their retirement benefits i.e., encashment of leave and gratuity. Learned Counsel would further submit that despite the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent-authorities did not choose to clear the amounts. Learned Counsel finally submits that specific direction by fixing time maybe give to the respondents in making the payment to the petitioners forthwith. 3 4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders by giving some time to the corporation for getting funds to clear the retiral benefits to the petitioners. 5. Considering the submissions made and a keen perusal of the material placed on record, it is not a case that the petitioners are facing any enquiry or any punishment is awarded against the petitioners. It is a case where even after determining the amount which the petitioners are entitled, the Corporation could not pay the amount to the petitioners for want of funds. Under these circumstances, it is apposite to dispose of the present petition directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to clear the retiral benefits of the petitioners which are already determined by the department forthwith but not later than four (4) weeks. In case the amount is not disbursed to the petitioners within the period fixed by this Court, it shall carry the interest @6% from that date. However, the petitioners after receiving the amounts are at liberty to make representations regarding the interest to the authorities and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall consider the representation and take appropriate decision according to Governing Rules and law. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 09.04.2025 UPS 4 14 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.26477 of 2018 Dated.09.04.2025 UPS