IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:;AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 4667 OF 2018 Between: Kanulla Venkateswarlu, S/o Late Samudram Aged about 61 years, Occ: Retd.Junior Accounts Officer Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd R/6 Door No. 4-22-35/1, Opp; Sai Baba Temple Koritepadu, Guntur District. ...Petitioner AND Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution, rep by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Qffice, Vidyuth Nilayam, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ^ '' • ♦ The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle) Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd, Vidyuth Bhavan, Sangadigunta, Punnuru RoacfrGuntur. The Senior Accounts Officer; (Operation Circle), Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd, Vidyuth Bhavan, Sangadigunta, Punnuru Road, Guntur. The Accounts Officer, (Expenditure) O/o Superintending Engineer Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd, Vidyuth Bhavan, Sangadigunta, Puhhuru'Road, Guntur. The Divisional Electrical Engineer, (Operation Circle Town-1) Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd, Nallacheruvu, Etukuru Road Guntur, Guntur District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. / - ' «^ Assistant Accounts Officer, (ERO) Andhra Pradesh Southern Distribution Company Ltd, ERO, Town-1, Opp Saraswathi Theatre, Station Road, Guntur. •'QrThe ■ .!*■ Power ...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 appropriate Writ, order or orders more particularly one of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents petitioner terminal benefits with great delay as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents in the nature in paying unjustifiable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for tiiie delayed payment of petitioner terminal benefits which the petitioner is entitled and eligible for the same in the interest of justice. lA MD! 1 OF 2018 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 direction' to the respondents to consider the pleased to issue a presentation dated 28-11-2016 for payment of Group Insurance Scheme re along with interest @ 18% p.a. Counsel for the PetitioneriSMT. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondents: V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) The Court made the following: APHC010730532018 IN THE HIGH CdURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 4667/2018 Between: Kanulla Venkateswarlu ...PETITIONER AND A.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., & Others ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.V.V.SATISH, SC FOR APERDGL 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, declaring the action of the Respondents in paying Petitioner terminal benefits with great delay as illegal, arbitrary, unjustifiable and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents to pay interest @18% p.a., for the delayed payment of Petitioner terminal benefits which the Petitioner is entitled and eligible for the same. ” 2. Heard Ms.Marella Radha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL. 2 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there is a delay of 32 months in fixing the pension and retiral benefits of the said delay, the Petitioner suffered financial to the Petitioner. Because loss. Learned counsel would further submit that, when there is a delay in paying the retiral benefits for no fault of the Petitioner, the Petitioner iIS entitled to claim interest @18% per annum. 4. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the Respondent Authorities duly issued notice in D.No.139/12, dated 24.01.2013 to the Petitioner and a Memo in D.No.238/14, dated 27.05.2014 him to submit pension proposals for sanction of as well requesting terminal benefits. But the were refused by the Petitioner and having no other go, the said notices were affixed to the residential address of the Petitioner. Counsel would further submit that it same Learned Standing was also informed to the Petitioner orally that the benefits if any will be extended without any disparity and discrimination as per his eligibility. It is submitted that, without submitting his pension proposals, the Petitioner is not entitled to claim benefits as per the provisions of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that all the the Petitioner. pension and terminal benefits were settled to It IS submitted that it is the binding duty of the Petitioner to sdbmit the required forms duly filing in 18 months in advance to the date of his actual retirement. The petitioner has submitted 26.0g 2016 and the his pension proposal dated same were received in the office on 06.01.2017 and the pension was approved on 02.02.2017, There is no delay in payment of the benefits to the Petitioner. Further, there is lapse on the part of the Petitioner in submitting the same within time. As such, he is not entitled to claim any interest. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years is not applicable to the Petitioner. \ Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material 5. placed on record, as rightly put by the learned Standing Counsel, several representations were made by the Petitioner regarding enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. Finally, after obtaining clarification, it was declared that the same is not applicable to the Petitioner. Then only the Petitioner has resubmitted his pension proposal forms and then it was processed and pension was fixed. Hence, there is no question of delay on the part of the Respondents in payment of the terminal benefits to the Petitioner. Further, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the Petitioner used to refuse the notice which was sent to him and then the notice was affixed to his residential address and the same is not denied by the Petitioner. 6. In the light of the above discussion,.this Court does not find any merit in this matter for awarding interest for the delayed payment of terminal benefits to the Petitioner. The role of Petitioner is also there for the said delay. In such circumstances, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4 In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as 7. to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand N closed / Sd/- K KASIRAO ACH/mi ASSISTANT REG^TP^R //TRUE COPY// ii SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SMT. MAR ELLA RAD HA Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 1. 2. 3. GSG : V . / •w HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 ORDER <o * WY, § 2 ^ SEP 2025 m WP.No.4667 of 2018 <o. dismissing the writ petition /"