IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 26205 of 2007 Between: 1 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, Khammam District. .....PETITIONERS AND G. Krishna Murthy, Retired M.R.O., Manuguru Mandal, R/o. 6-3-140/2, Bank Colony, Khammam. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA No. 1700/2006 dated 19-6-2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR W.P. No. 26205 of 2007 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 19.6.2007 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1700 of 2006. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and perused the material available on record. By the impugned order, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to pay all the retiremental benefits and the remaining pension to the applicant – respondent herein with interest at 8% per annum. The Tribunal further directed that interest should also be paid on delayed payment of provisional pension for 13 months. The main contention of the petitioners is that three cases were pending against the respondent and though the first two cases were dropped by the Government, the third case was pending as on the date of retirement of the respondent but the Tribunal without considering the said fact has erred in holding that there was delay in payment of pension and provisional pension and therefore interest should also be paid for the said delay. However, a perusal of the material available on record discloses that the first case relating to the issue of false S.T. caste certificate on 13.12.2001 was dropped by the Government vide Memo No. 55408/Vig.II(2)/2005-5 Rev., dated 22.12.2006. The second case relating to issue of false S.T. Caste Certificate to another lady was also dropped by the Government vide G.O.Rt. No.714 Revenue (Vig.II) Department dated 22.4.2003. The third case relates to a news item published in Andhra Jyothi daily on 17.3.1999 stating that an old man died in despair unable to withstand the harassment to pay bribe to the officials of M.R.O. Asfar as this case is concerned, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings has sent its report to the Government on 11.12.2001 itself. Basing on the said report of the T.D.P., the Government, however, dropped proceedings against the applicant vide Government Memo No. 3122/Rev.Vig.II/01-11 dated 11.6.2007. Under the above circumstances, the Tribunal held that by the date of retirement of the respondent no departmental or judicial proceedings were pending against him as the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings has sent its report in favour of the respondent in 2001 itself. Though the petitioners contend that there is no provision for payment of interest on delayed payment of retirement gratuity, as rightly held by the Tribunal Clause (1-A) of Rule 46 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules clearly prescribes that interest shall be allowed for delayed payment of retirement gratuity. Under the above circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that there is no justification in delaying payment of full pension and provisional pension. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. We find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. S. ASHOK KUMAR, J. Date: 28-03-2008. MVB.