APHC010278632026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15826/2026 Between: Chinta Vidya Sagar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BANDLA PAVAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.15826 of 2026 O R DE R: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the denial of gratuity amount on account of pendency of C.C.No.15 of 2021 before III Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department. Vide G.O.Rt.No.920 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (E.II) Department, dated 28.12.2023, the Petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2024. While in service, an ACB case was registered against the Petitioner vide C.C.No.15 of 2021 before III Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, and the same is pending for adjudication. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though the Petitioner had retired from service on 30.06.2024, the gratuity amount in terms of G.O.Rt.No.1097 F & P (FE.Pen.I) Department, dated 22.06.2000 was not paid to the Petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that Rule 52 (1) (c) of AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980, prohibits the payment of gratuity benefits pending the criminal case and that the said issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.196 of 2022, dated 16.02.2022 and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief. 5. Heard the counsels. 3 6. Rule 52 (1) (c) of AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980 as under: “ Rule 52(1)(c): "No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders : Provided that provisional pension shall not be paid to the Government servant who is convicted by a Criminal Court and whose case is pending before the Appellate Court. Provided further that where a financial loss is not involved or where the financial loss is minimal and can be recovered from the remaining balance of gratuity, an amount up to 80% of the retirement gratuity may be released pending conclusion of the disciplinary/judicial proceedings, subject to the conditions as may be specified by the Government from time to time." The said provision specifically prohibits the payment of gratuity pending the criminal case. Subsequently, G.O.Rt.No.1097, dated 22.06.2000 was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.196 of 2022 and held that similarly placed persons like the Petitioner cannot entitle for gratuity pending criminal case. The paragraphs Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the said Judgment are as follows: “8. Extending the import of proviso to clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.1097 dated 22.06.2000. The relevant part of the G.O.Rt.No.1097 is extracted hereunder: “C. Retirement Gratuity: According to clause(c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, no Gratuity shall be paid until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue the final orders. According to the proviso to the above said Rule, where Departmental Proceedings have been instituted under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 9 of the said Rules, except the cases 4 falling under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the said Rules, the payment of Gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the Government Servant. It is also further provided in the said Rule that where a conclusion has been reached that a portion of pension only should be withheld or withdrawn and the Retirement Gratuity remains unaffected in the contemplated final orders, the Retirement Gratuity can be released upto 80% of the eligible Retirement Gratuity.” 9. A joint reading of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Section 52 of the Rules, 1980 along with G.O.Rt.No.1097 dated 22.06.2000 would make it clear that the proviso appended to clause (c) concerns a situation where the retired Government Servant is undergoing departmental proceedings. The proviso does not deal with a situation where the retired Government Servant is facing judicial proceedings. While the first part of clause(c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980 provides that no gratuity shall be paid until the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings or issue of the final orders, the proviso enables the Government to release 80% of the eligible gratuity in appropriate cases, where the retired Government Servant is facing the disciplinary proceedings. However, the said enabling proviso has not dealt with a situation where the retired Government Servant is facing judicial proceedings. 10. The case decided by the Division Bench of common High Court in W.P. No.30443 of 2016 was dealing with the prayer of a retired Government Servant for release of leave encashment. It was not dealing with the prayer for release of 80% of gratuity. The judgment in the matter of R. Veerabhadram vs. Government of A.P. reported in (1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 43 referred by the learned single Judge clearly holds that by virtue of Rule 52(c) of the Rules, 1980, there is an express power empowering the Government to withhold gratuity during the pendency of any judicial proceedings against the employee. Even though the said judgment was rendered before issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1097, the fact remains that there is no amendment in the main part of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980. As we have mentioned earlier, the proviso only concerns a situation where the employee is facing disciplinary proceedings and not when he is 6 facing judicial proceedings. In our considered view, the judgment in the case of R.Veerabhadram (supra) would still hold in a case where the employee is facing judicial proceedings. 5 7. The above judgment was unfortunately not brought to the notice of the Court in the case of S. Venkata Rao v. State of AP, rep by its Principal Secretary1 cited by the counsel for the Petitioner. 8. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 22.06.2026 eha 1 2026 SCC Online AP 1772 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.15826 of 2026 Dated: 22.06.2026 eha