[ 3396 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY .THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH I? TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE \ AMARAVATI PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI WRIT PETITION NO: 6832 OF 2018 PRATAPA Between: h Panigrahi, S/o. Late.Narasimhamurthy, Hindu, aged abou 69 years, Retd. CME Operator Gr.-I, Visakhapatnam Port Trust R/at. Ippmavanipalem, Chintagatia (PO), Pendurthi (M) District., A.P. Visakhapatnam ...PETITIONER 0 ci"f Chairman, Visakhapatnam. 2. FA & CAO, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. AND ...RESPONDENTS Pet,bon under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is bled praying tha m the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High in the 7 ^ '’f o®®'' *° '''’■action particularly a writ pIns!on ?nri CIR, ? f 7® '' PaVTients of Graftiity, Commutation of RrsOM/ r! t ? 1.527/-, Rs.2,50915/- and Rs.5000/- respectively for the period from 01-10-2006 to 25-03-2016 by ?reaaTa7d 7, 7 ^®PP°"PP"‘P i" "“I P^VinO interest as arbitrary ctnne , f 7 Constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. B M PATRO Counsel for the Respondents: N^ASIKALA (STANDING VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST) The Court made the following: COUNSEL FOR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 6832/2018 Between: 1.P. SASIBHUSHANA PANIGRAHI, S/0. LATE.NARASIMHAMURTHY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RETD. CME OPERATOR GR.-I, VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST, R/AT. CHINTAGATLA (PO), PENDURTHI (M), DISTRICT., A.P. IPPINAVANIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. FA AND CAO, VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST. VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.BMPATRO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.N SASIKALA (STANDING COUNSEL FOR VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay appropriate interest @ 18% on the delayed payments of Gratuity, Commutation of Pension and SBI Life Insurance amounts Rs.3,11,527/-, Rs.2,50915/- and Rs.5000/- respectively for the period from 01-10-2006 to 25-03-2016 by declaring the action of the respondents in not paying interest as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.” 2. Heard Sri B.M.Patro, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.N.Sasikala, learned Standing Counsel for Visakhapatnam Port Trust. \ V 2 Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner retired as CME Operation Grade-1 on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2006 in Respondent-Port Trust. Learned counsel would further submit that, The Respondent Organization withheld the service benefits of the Petitioner on the pretext of existence of civil court attachments against the Petitioner. It is submitted that though the Petitioner filed a complaint before Human Rights Commission for release of the said amounts, the same was closed holding that the relief cannot be granted in view of the pendency of civil cases in various Courts. Learned counsel would submit that, during pendency of the representation, dated 15.02.2013 and the claim application under Section 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 read with 19(1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 made by the Petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Visakhapatnam, the amounts towards gratuity, commutation of pension and bonus from SBI Life Insurance paid to the Petitioner on 25.03.2013. Learned counsel would submit that as the Petitioner was retired on 30.09.2006, the payment of the said amounts were badly delayed. Hence, prayed td grant interest @ 18% on the delayed 3. were payments. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents would submit that the amounts claimed by the Petitioner were under the attachment by virtue of the orders passed by the Civil Courts in various suits between the Petitioner and third parties. It is submitted that, by virtue of the Court orders, the Petitioner could not get those amounts. Learned Standing Counsel would V 3 finally submit that the principal amounts were given to the Petitioner in the year 2013 itself. At this stage it is apposite to extract the letter dated 16.01.2014 addressed by the Accounts Department of Respondent - Port Trust to the counsel for the Petitioner, which is as follows; 5. The C.M.EA/PT who was the employer of the Petitioner has forwarded the pay orders relating to the retirement benefits such as Gratuity, Commutation of pension and Bonus allowed by SBI (L) etc., to the accounts department vide letter dt. 29.09.2006 to place the benefits in deposits was per legal opinion of the said counsel. All the attachments served against the said JDR returned by the Garnishee to the respective Hon'ble courts from time to time. But most of the attachment orders were made absolute by the concerned Hon'ble courts due to absence of the JDR on the respective hearing dates. Thereafter, your client also approached and filed a complaint vide HRC No.s 941/2007 Dt. 10-12-2007 in the Hon'ble Human Rights Commission against VPT on the subject issue and after due enquiry the Hon'ble HRC has dismissed his complaint on the ground that, the non settlement of retirement benefits is not unfettered, but it is fettered because of pendency of cases before various courts. There after, the retired employee also approached the Hon'ble District Legal Services Authority Visakhapatnam on the same grievance and it also ended with same result. Further, the said retired employee has also-approached to the Hon'ble A.P. Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad on the same grounds for which a reply was also issued vide letter dt.19-10-2007 and no further directions were received by this office from the Hon'ble A.P. Legal Service Committee, Hyderabad. While so recently your client also approached the Asst, Labour Commissioner (central), Visakhapatnam under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 against which notices were received by VPT. In response VPT attended the ALC and a detailed counter dt.23.08.2012 in this regard was also filed with ALC on behalf of VPT. VPT also made payment of Gratuity for an amount of Rs.3,11,527/- commutation of Rs.2,50,915/- and bonus from SBI L insurance co., Rs. 5,000/- to Sri. P.S. Panigrahi on 25/03/2013 during the pending of the proceeding before ALC. were was 4 initiated by P.S. Panigrahi on withholding of Gratuity Commutation before Human Rights Commission, Hon'ble District Legal Service authority, Hon’ble courts also ended In dismissal. Therefore, the reasons for withholding gratuity and commutation cannot be attributed to VPT. Therefore, Visakhapatnam petitioner.’^ as being demanded by the 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents and in view of the contents of the above letter said amounts were withheld pursuant to the orders of since, the attachment in various Civil Courts, the Respondent-Port Trust is not liable to pay any interest demanded by the Petitioner. Further, the claim of interest is of civil nature. There is no merit in the contentions raised by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the petition deserves dismissal. as 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. One CC to SRI. B M PATRO Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. N SASIKALA (STANDING COUNSEL FOR VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST) Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 2. 3. r HIGH COURT DATED:21/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.6832 of 2018 THE WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS