i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1688 OF 2022 Between: Landa Krishna Murthy, S/o. Late Sreeramulu, Hindu, aged about 60 years. Employment No.6839/100620, Retired Employee, R/o. D.No.14-102, Durga Kailas Nagar, Visakhapatnam - 24, Visakhapatnam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Visakhapatnam Prot Trust, Rept. by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Traffic Department, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Traffic Manager, Visakhapatnam. ...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 declaring the action of the 2"^^ respondent by passing an impugned order No.TM/CHD/LE/LKM/2021/606 dt. 25.11.2021 though the petitioner charges were not proved before the competent Criminal Court in C.C.No.197/98 and inquiry officer, even though without taken consideration of petitioner rendered service from 20.05.1995 to 18.02.2002 for payment of pensionary benefits is as illegal, improper and arbitrary consequently to set aside the impugned order declared the petitioner is entitled pension benefits. / lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 directing the respondents to release the regular monthly pension and pensionary benefits with immediate effect, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 receive the additional affidavit in WP.No.1688 of 2022 to be read along with the counter affidavit already on record and dismiss the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. AKELLA PADMA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI MAHARAJ representing SRI P. SRI RAM The Court made the following: ORDER / APHC010023492022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1688/2022 Between: Landa Krishna Murthy ...PETITIONER AND Visakhapatnam Prot Trust and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.A PADMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PSRI RAM The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “ to issue a writ order or direction more particuiariy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"“* respondent by passing an impugned dt.25.11.2021 though the petitioner charges were not proved before the competent Criminal Court in C.C.No.197/98 and inquiry officer even though without taken consideration of petitioner rendered service from 20.05.1995 to 18.02.2002 for payment of pensionary order No. TM/CHD/LE/LKM/2021/606, f 2 benefits is as illegal, improper and arbitrary consequently to set aside the impugned order declared the petitioner is entitled pension benefits ” Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as casual worker in unregistered scheme in Visakhapatnam dock labour board on 06.03.1994 under compassionate appointment on regular basis. On 11.02.2003, a show-cause notice was issued, callinig for explanation from the 2. petitioner and inquiry was conducted from 23.02.2002 to 10.03.2003 and the petitioner was under suspension. On 11.03.2003, the petitioner was taken into service pending inquiry vide proceedings No.E1/R/2003. While so, the 1 respondent herein issued proceedings vide No.P1/Dis/2004/1668, dated 12.03.2004 stating that, as per the inquiry report and explanation submitted by the petitioner with the findings of the inquiry officer, hereby drop the charges levelled against the petitioner, upon dropping of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the 1®‘ respondent issued proceedings vide No.RS/L/CASUAL/ 2004/1402, dated 05.10.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted application under Voluntary Retirement scheme and sought for pension to retire under the scheme. Basing on the same, the 2""^ respondent accorded St an permission vide proceedings R.C.No.CHD/LE/SVRS/LKM/2010/ 3834, dated 31.12.2010 and the petitioner was relieved from service on that day itself. As per the scheme, the petitioner is entitled to pension/commutatio n/special VRS ex-gratia, but the 2"'^ respondent not releasing the benefits to petitioner for last m r' 3 12 years. Hence, the petitioner submitted representation on 16.09.2021 and requesting to pay the pensionary benefits. But the 2"'^ respondent without taking into consideration of the request of the petitioner, passed impugned order vide proceedings No.TM/CHD/LE/LKM/2021/606, dated 25.11.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the petitioner was kept under suspension vide order dated 20.05.1995 with effect from 20.05.1995 due to his involvement in 138 bogus widow pension cases along with other three employees of the Board. Thereafter, the police filed a criminal case in C.C.No.197 of 1998. Later, the same was disposed off, by duly acquitting the petitioner from the criminal charges. Hence, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 19.02.2002 by revoking the suspension subject to departmental enquiry proceedings in the same case. After four days of reinstatement, again the petitioner was kept under suspension on 23.02.2002 on the ground of initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings in the same case. However the petitioner was allowed to resume duty with effect from 11.03.2003, pending enquiry. Finally, the departmental disciplinary proceedings also dropped vide proceedings dated 12.03.2004 and after inquiry, the charges against the petitioner were held not proved. It is further stated that the petitioner retired from service under SVRS w.e.f. 31.12.2010. After retirement. i 4 pension was not granted to the petitioner, since he did into fulfil the condition of rendering ten years regular service for getting such pension, as the service rendered by him between the period from 06.03.1994 to 06.09.2004 was not taken into consideration on the ground that the petitioner is only a casual worker during that period and converted into B-1 category Mazdoor only w.e.f. 07.09.2004. Out of the above IOV2 years casual service, the petitioner was under suspension nearly about 7 years 9 months period and his request for back wages for above suspension period was also not considered. Hence, the contention of the petitioner for not releasing the benefits for the last twelve years is not correct. 4. Heard Ms.A.Padma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Maharaj, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Sriram, learned counsel for the respondents. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, according to 32A and 5C of 5. Visakhapatnam Unregistered Dock Workers regulation of employment scheme, 1968, the worker who is not found guilty, he shall entitled to all the benefits. He further submits that the petitioner was not found guilty as per inquiry report and also as per the judgment of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner was acquitted, his casual services were taken into service from 20.05.1995 to 16.08.2001 for the purpose of pensionary 5 /f benefits. He further submits that the petitioner was continued as casual worker and he was converted into B1 category only on 07.09.2004, the petitioner retired from service under Special Voluntary Retirement scheme with effect from 31.12.2010. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate appointment with regular pay scale. Hence, refusing to consider the past rendered ten years of casual work service for payment of pensionary benefits is illegal, improper, arbitrary and unjust. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the 6. petitioner had submitted a letter dated 10.08.2017 under RTI Act, 2005 were not taken into consideration for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits. In response, the respondents addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that his services in CHD from 06.03.1994 to 06.09.2004 was not taken into consideration for the purpose of pensionary benefits for the reason that he was only a casual worker during that period and converted into B-1 category Mazdoor w.e.f 07.09.2004. The petitioner was already examined earlier in detail on his request to convert him into B1 category Mazdoor w.e.f. 01.06.1997 and to treat the suspension period as on duty for payment of back wages and pensionary benefits. He further submits that the petitioner was under suspension for the period from 20.05.1995 to 18.02.2002 and from 6 23.02.2002 to 10.03.2003, when he was continuing as Casual Worker. He was converted into B1 Mazdoor category w.e.f. 07.09.2004 only after completion of departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and subsequently, the petitioner retired from the services under SVR Scheme with effect from 31.12.2010. Thus, the petitioner did not render ten years of regular service as required under rules of payment of pensionary benefits and the same was informed vide letter dated 25.11.2021. Therefore, learned counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the record. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the petitioner filed material papers showing the Special Disciplinary Powers of the Chairman Board and the relevant point reads as follows: 8. “5(c). Where a worker is found not guilty, he shall be entitled to such payments in respect of the period of his suspension as the Administrative Body or Board may certify that the worker would have received on the time rate basis or under clause 28 had he not been suspended; provided that the amounts so payable shall be reduced by the amount of subsistence allowance already paid during that period. ” 9. As seen from the proceedings vide No.LB-16016/7/88-L.II, dated 29.08.1991 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport (Labour Division), this Court observed that, “an employee who has completed 10 years of service or completed 40 years of age may seek voluntary retirement by a written request". « Having regard to the facts and circumstances*of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, as the petitioner has not found guilty and he has already completed 40 years of age, the petitioner is entitled to for all the benefits in terms of proceedings vide No.LB-16016/7/88-L.II, dated 29.08.1991 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport (Labour Division). But the respondents without considering the same have mechanically passed the impugned order. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 25.11.2021 and also inclined to remand back the matter to the 2"'^ respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings vide No.TM/CHD/LE/LKM/2021/606, dated 25.11.2021 issued by the 2^^ respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 2'^'^ respondent to re-examine the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate reasoned orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall 10. 11. 12. stand closed. SDI- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC’Ti&OFFiCER To 1. The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Prot Trust, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Traffic Manager, Traffic Department, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. 3. One CC to Smt. Akella Padma, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri P. Sri Ram, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies. ssb \ HIGH COURT DATED:10/01/2025 ORDER S' 01 FEB 2025 | ,<5.^ Current Section WP.No.1688 of 2022 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS