1 APHC010133722016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 21559 OF 2016 Between: 1. V. Ranga Rao, S/o Venkata Seshagiri Rao,, Retired Employee of Srirangapatnam PACS, resident of Raghavapuram Village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Cooperation, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Office situated in the premises of Ramadasu Cooperative Training Institute, Gandhipuram-III, Rajahmundry- 533 103, East Godavari District. 3. Srirangapatnam Primary Agricultural Co.Op Society Ltd, Rep., by its Chief Executive officer/Secretary, Srirangapatnam Village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District. 4. The President Srirangapatnam Primary, Agricultural Co-Op Society Ltd., Srirangapatnam Village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the respondents 3 and 4 herein in not paying 2 the petitioner's an amount of Rs.1,68,211/- along with 18% interest per annum towards difference of wages due from 1-4-2009 to 30-06-2012, Difference of Wages for the Earned Leave encashment and Difference of Gratuity in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.151 Agriculture & Cooperation (COOP-VI) Department, dated 22-06-2009 in spite of his repeated requests and the legal notice dated 31-12-2012, as opposed to Law, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to pay the amounts as stated above IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 26480 OF 2016 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 direct the respondents particularly the respondents 3 and 4 herein to pay the petitioner's an amount of Rs.1,68,211/- along with 18% interest per annum towards Difference of Wages due from 1-4-2009 to 30-06-2012, Difference of Wages for the Earned Leave encashment and Difference of Gratuity in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 151 Agriculture & Cooperation (COOP-VI) Department, dated 22-06-2009 forthwith during the pendency of the writ petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) Counsel for the Respondents:N SIVA REDDY The Court made the following order: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.21559 OF 2016 ORDER: The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the respondents 3 and 4 herein in not paying the petitioner's an amount of Rs.1,68,211/- along with 18% interest per annum towards difference of wages due from 1-4-2009 to 30-06-2012, Difference of Wages for the Earned Leave encashment and Difference of Gratuity in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.151 Agriculture & Cooperation (COOP-VI) Department, dated 22.06.2009 in spite of his repeated requests and the legal notice dated 31-12-2012, as opposed to Law, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to pay the amounts as stated above and to pass….” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk/Staff Assistant in the 3rd respondent society, i.e. Srirangapatnam Primary Agricultural Co.Op Society Ltd, on 01.11.1989 and after working in the said post for about 23 years, he retired from service from the said society on 30.06.2012. While the petitioner is in service, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.151 Agriculture & Cooperation (Co.Op.VI) Department, dated 22.06.2009, 4 whereby and where under, the Government of Andhra Pradesh fixed the pay scales to the employees working in PACS other than de-cadrised Paid Secretaries to enable Primary Agriculture Cooperative Societies to implement NABARD guidelines on expenditure and manpower norms and also to resolve issues pertaining to the Cadre VI employees of DCCB orders. 3. Heard Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. Perused the material available on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the said G.O., the Commissioner, Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, issued a circular Memo R.C.No.7934/2012/P.C.1 dated 07.06.2012, wherein reiterated the recitals in the G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 22.06.2009 and also given specific direction to the concerned PACS that if there is any financial constrains in payment of amounts to their staff, they can avail Staff Loan by approaching the concerned APCOB and DCCB also. 5. The learned counsel further submits that though the 3rd respondent paid the requisite salary but not paid in terms of G.O.Ms.No.151 as well as circular dated 07.06.2009 by duly calculating the arrears of salary and other entitlements. Hence, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 31.12.2012 addressed to R3 and R4 by stating his specific grievance that 5 to calculate the pay scales payable as per G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 22.06.2009 and also the circular dated 07.06.2012 issued by the Commissioner and the Registrar of Co. Op. Societies, Government of A.P., at the earliest. But, no response from the concerned authorities. Hence, the petitioner was forced to file the instant lis. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4, while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, fairly states that the respondents have not denied the services rendered by the petitioner and the petitioner’s employment as well as retirement from service on 30.06.2012. But, in the counter, it is mainly stated that the 3rd respondent is facing financial difficulties, as such, they are not able to pay the requisite amounts to the petitioner and it is further averred that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing a copy of letter addressed by the respondents to the petitioner before this Court, submits that the 3rd respondent society paid a sum of Rs.1,68,211/- to the petitioner by way of cheque with an undertaking from the petitioner to the effect that in the event of failure of the writ petition, the petitioner is liable to pay back the same to the society. He submits that the petitioner, being a senior citizen, aged about 70 years, and is suffering from multifarious problems physically and fiscally, having no 6 other option, the circumstances forced the petitioner to sign the said undertaking along with his son. 8. Apparently, the respondents have not denied the employment particulars or the service rendered by the petitioner in their society. However, they claim only their financial inability to pay the requisite amount in terms of G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 22.06.2009 and also the circular instructions dated 07.06.2012. 9. In D.S Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while referring to the Deokinandan Prasad case in the course of interpreting the pensionary rights and entitlements of the employees, had categorically held as under:- “……20. The antequated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab V. Iqbal Singh……… 29. Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding 7 to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or 16 emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon……” 10. Very recently, the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma1, in its unequivocal words, stated that pension is not a charity or a bounty and an employee is entitled to receive his pension. Hence, in view of catena of judgments, the law is well settled without any iota of doubt. 11. In respect of financial incapacity/poor financial conditions as stated by the 3rd respondent PACS for non-releasing revised the pay scales in terms of G.O.Ms.No.151 Agriculture & Cooperative (Coop-VI) Department dated 22.06.2009 issued by the 1st respondent State Government. 12. Coming to the aspect of financial incapacity/poor financial conditions as stated by the 3rd respondent PACS, for non-releasing of the amounts towards the services of the petitioner. A mere financial incapacity or paucity of funds cannot be a valid defence for non-fulfilment 1 (2025) SCC OnLine SC 596 8 of such statutory obligations, more particularly, when the employees rendered their services, as such, they are entitlements in accordance with the procedure in vogue. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court also reiterated the above principles in the dictum of Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others Vs. G.S. Uppal. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:- “…..34. Thus, the Corporation cannot put forth financial loss as a ground only with regard to a limited category of 18 employees it cannot be said that the Corporation is financially sound insofar as granting of revised pay scales to other employees is concerned, but finds financial constraints only when it comes to dealing with the respondents who are similarly placed in the same category. Having regard to the well- reasoned judgment of the Division Bench upholding the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the impugned judgment warrants no interference inasmuch as no illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction could be shown before us……” 14. When the employee is entitled to the statutory entitlements, the same cannot be deprived, unless there is any legal impediment only. As such, mere financial inability will not evade the legal liability to pay the differential wages to the petitioner. 15. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Since the respondents have already paid an amount of Rs.1,68,211/- with an undertaking from the petitioner as well as his son, too, it is made clear that the respondents 9 shall not recover the difference amount i.e., Rs.1,68,211/- already paid to the petitioner, in view of this writ petition being allowed. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:20.12.2025 Rns 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.21559 of 2016 Date:12.12.2025 Rns 108