THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Review WAMP No. 283 of 2012 in WRIT APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.Ramamohana Rao) The respondent – writ petitioner filed this review petition seeking review of the judgment rendered on 29.11.2011 in WA No. 600 of 2009 which was instituted by the respondents herein. Writ Appeal No. 600 of 2009 was directed against the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge in WP No. 8987 of 2008 filed seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the inaction of the respondents in not paying the terminal benefits i.e., GPF, Gratuity, Earned leave salary, Group Insurance and other benefits due to the petitioner. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to settle the retirement benefits and to pay pension to the petitioner notwithstanding the undertaking given by him while in service within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by this decision of the learned single Judge, the respondents have filed the writ appeal. Dealing with the said writ appeal, the Division Bench while subscribing to the same principle, as was done by the learned single Judge, held that payment of pension is no longer liable to be treated as an act of grace or bounty on the part of the employer and it is a right earned by the employee in recognition of the quality services rendered by him in the past. Thereafter, all that the Division Bench did observe was, that if the employer has already deducted various amounts as listed at paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit and transmitted the same to various creditors of the writ petitioner, no fault would lie at the door-step of the employer in that regard and if any further amount of retrial benefits accrued including arrears of pension payable to the writ petitioner, is still available and is payable, the same may be paid to the respondent/writ petitioner together with monthly pension as directed by the learned single Judge. The Bench further added that if the deductions are already effected by the Appellants so far, they cannot be faulted. The present review application is moved by the writ petitioner setting out that that the observations made in para 5 of the order passed by the Division Bench that if the employer has already deducted various amounts as listed at paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit and transmitted the same to various creditors of the writ petitioner, no fault would lie, is an erroneous observation and deserves to be deleted. Heard Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would strenuously contend that in spite of the petitioner intimating the Divisional Electrical Engineer/Operation, APSPDCL, Guntur on 21.5.2007 that he has withdrawn his application for commutation of his pension and instead sought for payment of full pension every month, the said Divisional Electrical Engineer has failed to act promptly thereon and consequently a portion of his pension has been commuted and the lum sum amount they accrued has been made over to his creditors. This action of the Divisional Electrical Engineer is per se illegal. When we confronted Sri Pitchaiah as to whether the Divisional Electricity Engineer is the competent authority for sanctioning pension and also consequently for accepting the offer of commutation of a portion of pension and, if the answer is in the negative as to whether the review petitioner/writ petitioner has approached said competent authority seeking permission for withdrawing his earlier option for commuting a portion of his pension, the learned counsel could not come up with any satisfactory explanation nor could he demonstrate with reference to any material available on record that the withdrawal of offer of commutation of pension was within the knowledge of the employer/pension sanctioning authority. He is only a head of office. He is also one of the officers of the power distribution company. It is not in doubt that the Divisional Electrical Engineer is not the pension sanctioning authority. Therefore, we are not impressed in any manner by the first submission made by Sri Pitchaiah in this regard. Dealing with the fact that the review petitioner/writ petitioner has executed an authorization in favour of the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Guntur, authorizing the later to withhold all his retirement benefits till the Divisional Electrical Engineer hears from the creditor bank in writing, all that the learned counsel for the review petitioner would urge is that any such agreement is void. The fact, however, remains that the Divisional Electrical Engineer has been authorized specifically by the writ petitioner to deduct every month a sum of Rs.4,610/- from the salary payable to the review petitioner and to remit the same to the credit of his loan A/c with Vijaya Bank, Guntur Branch. In that context, he has executed the authorization to withhold the terminal benefits payable to the review petitioner till such time the Divisional Engineer hears from the bank. Similarly, the review petitioner has executed agreements with the Pay Drawing Officer for effecting deductions from his salary and terminal benefits. They are all purely unilateral actions on the part of the review petitioner/writ petitioner. Further, at page 54 of the Writ Appeal Paper Book, the one such authorization executed by the writ petitioner in favour of the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation Circle, Guntur has been placed. The crucial contents of paragraph 3 read as under: “3. In case of my death, retirement, resignation or discontinuing the service for any reason whatsoever, I hereby authorize you to pay any amount payable on my account by reason aforesaid, to State Bank of Mysore, Guntur Branch, towards the balance outstanding in the aforesaid loan account. Such payment shall be deemed as a payment to me or on my account.” (Emphasis is brought out) It is therefore a clear case where the review petitioner/writ petitioner has not only authorized the Pay Disbursing Officer to effect deductions but also acknowledged any such payments made to his creditor bank as payments made to him or on his account. In other words, any payment made by the Pay Drawing Officer to State Bank of Mysore, Guntur Branch, is treated by the review petitioner/writ petitioner as payment made to himself. In such an event, he cannot be permitted to plead that unauthorisedly payments were made to the bank by the Pay Drawing Officer and hence he should be made good the said amount. When once he undertook to treat the payments made to his creditor Bank(s) as payment to himself, he cannot now seek a payment second time all over. In this view of the matter, we do not find any error in the observations made by the Division Bench in the judgment rendered in WA No. 600 of 2009 warranting a review. Insofar as attachment orders passed by various competent Civil Courts are concerned, the Pay Drawing Officer/Pension Disbursing authority has no competence to sit on appeal over such orders and take a decision as to whether the order of attachment passed by the Civil Court is legal and or valid. It is for the review petitioner/writ petitioner to approach the court which passed the order of attachment and satisfy the said court about the legality and validity of order of attachment passed by it and request that court to recall any such order of attachment if the same is not sustainable in law. The review petitioner/writ petitioner cannot expect the appellants in the writ appeal to undertake such an exercise on his behalf. We are therefore of the view that there is no merit in this review petition and it is accordingly dismissed. But, however, without costs. ------------------------------ JUSTICE G.RAGHU RAM -------------------------------------------- JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Knk .11.2012