IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13200 OF 2012 Between: J. Rama Mohan Rao, S/o.Venkata Satyanarayana, Hindu years, R/o.D.No.10-37-15/2, Visakhapatnam. aged about 57 Near N.I.l.T. Computers, Rama Nagar, ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep. by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Chief Mechanical Engineer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Department, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in not paying commutation and gratuity to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein to release commutation and gratuity to the petitioner herein forthwith. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012rWPMP. NO: 16448 OF 2012) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent herein to release commutation and gratuity to the petitioner herein forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed 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 herein to pay forthwith my all retirement benefits together with interest. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K V SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P SRI RAM The Court made the following: ORDER V APHC010560692012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13200/2012 Between: ...PETITIONER J. Rama Mohan Rao, AND The Visakhapatnam Port Trust and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1. K V SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for the Respondent(S): ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.. 2.P SRI RAM 3. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.13200 of 2012 ORDER; The petitioner is challenging the inaction on part of the respondent is not paying gratuity and other service benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as Mechanic Grade-ll in the respondent/Port trust on 09.11.1979. The petitioner was promoted from time to time. After rendering 30 years of service, the petitioner received a notice dated 15.06.2004, which was issued by the Sub-Collector, Paderu, calling the petitioner to 2. St 1 appear before him on 02.07.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some co- 3. employees of the petitioner submitted a complaint to the Sub- Collector, Paderu, alleging that the petitioner has submitted a fake caste certificate. An enquiry regarding the said caste certificate was conducted and the Collector cancelled the certificate issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal on 23.10.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22239 of 2006 and this Court vide order dated 28.10.2015 3 allowed the Writ Petition and set-aside the order passed by the Government cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner. On the premise of the alleged submission of fake caste certificate, the respondent also proposed to conduct an enquiry. In the respondent imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement for the petitioner vide proceedings dated 04.02.2012 and sanctioned provisional pension of Rs.10,710/- per month with effect from 12.01.2009 and the petitioner was informed that payment of gratitude would be considered at a later point of time. nd meanwhile, the 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has attained superannuation long back the respondents have failed to compute the gratuity payable on the premise that major penalty charge sheet and criminal case are pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is struggling to make both ends meet and inaction of the respondents in releasing the gratuity amount is causing due 4. 5. hardship. Learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have with held the computation of gratuity as the Vishakhapatnam post trust employees are governed by Central 6. 4 Civil Services (Pension Rules 1972) and in view of Rule 69(1) (a), 69(1) (b), 69 (1) (c), the respondents are entitled to with hold the gratuity more so when the case is pending against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner was paid the pension however, gratuity can be with held by the respondents to ensure that no employee would be permitted to obtain employment by submitting fake certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 7. CCS(Pension) Rules are not applicable to the petitioner and that the employees of Visakhapatnam Port Trust Employess are governed by the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,. I.A.No.1 of 2018 there is no provision in payment of Gratuity Act 1972, which empowers the employer to with hold the gratuity of an employee who has ceased to be employed by virtue of compulsory retirement. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get gratuity upon the termination of employment u/s.4(1) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 8. respondents. Perused the record. There is no justification on part of the respondents in not commuting and releasing the gratuity due and payable to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the Writ 5 Petition No.22239 of 2006 attained finality, after the writ petition was allowed by this Court on 28.10.2015. The respondents soon after allowing of the writ petition ought to have taken further steps to challenge the order and failure on part of the respondents in challenging the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22239 of 2006 would imply that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner which was set-aside and cancelled by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 23.10.2006 was set-aside by this Court. With regard to the contention of the respondents that the criminal cases are pending against the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the contents in the reply affidavit submits that no criminal case has been filed by the police in pursuance of the complaint made by the respondent 9. No.1. Considering the same the respondents ought to have paid the commutation and gratuity due payable to the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances, ends of justice would be meet if the respondents are directed to commute and pay gratuity to the petitioner. The respondents are further directed to pay interest at the rate of 8% on the gratuity payable from 28.10.2005, and the date on which the W.P.No.22239 of 2006 was allowed. 10. 6 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I SE N OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman,Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. The Chief Mechanical Engineer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Department, Visakhapatnam. One CC to Sri K V Subrahmanya Narusu, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri P Sri Ram, Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. TF » HIGH COURT DATED;23/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.13200 of 2012 oTandT;^:^ 13 FEB 2025 o\ f"! Co ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS