THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16098 OF 2010 28TH JULY 2010. BETWEEN: THE GOVT. OF A.P. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE & PLANNING DEPT., SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS .. PETITIONERS AND M.Y.PARAMAHAMSA RAJU AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16098 OF 2010 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM) The writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services II for the petitioners. The 1st respondent herein filed O.A.No.327 of 2007 for a declaration that the action of the respondents therein (writ petitioners) in failing to pay interest on delayed payment of pensionary benefits and not allowing the applicant to commute the pension from the date of his retirement i.e. from 31.12.2000 is arbitrary and illegal; for invalidation of the Memo dated 5.8.2006; and for a consequent relief of a direction to the petitioners herein to pay him interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits including the balance of commutation of pension. The 1st respondent herein retired on 31.12.2000 as a Divisional Accounts Officer. Earlier he filed O.A.No.8495 of 2001 seeking sanction of retirement benefits including encashment of earned leave of 236 days. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. on 20-4-2005 directing sanction of encashment of earned leave and other pensionary benefits and fixing a time limit for the same. The petitioners did not implement the order and the 1st respondent filed C.A.No.973 of 2005. After summons in the Contempt Application were issued, pensionary benefits were paid to the 1st respondent. Though in the order dated 20.4.2005 in O.A.No.8495 of 2001 the Tribunal directed payment of interest as entitled, the petitioners did not pay interest to 1st respondent on the delayed payment of terminal benefits and therefore he filed O.A.No.327 of 2007. In defence to the O.A. the petitioners herein contended that the State Government on 7.6.2006 had dropped the charges against the 1st respondent pursuant to a report of the Enquiry Officer dated 10.10.2003 holding the charges as not proved. The Tribunal found the conduct of the Government in taking three long years to drop the charges after the report of the enquiry and deserved that this conduct is reflective of lethargy and incompetence of the State and that for such incompetence of the State the 1st respondent herein should not suffer denial of interest. In order to recompense the 1st respondent, the Tribunal by the order impugned directed that interest be paid from 10-10-2003 (date of the enquiry report exonerating the 1st respondent from culpability of the charges laid) to 26.10.2006 (the date on which terminal benefits were paid to the 1st respondent), in accordance with the orders of the Government as to the appropriate rate of interest issued from time to time with regard to delayed payment of pensionary benefits. The impugned order of the Tribunal in our considered view is a just restitution for the trauma undergone by the 1st respondent for the callous negligence of the State. On an analysis of the above, the order impugned in this writ petition is impeccable. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Dt:28-07-2010. ( G.RAGHURAM, J ) ( R.KANTHA RAO, J ) TNB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16098 OF 2010 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM) Dt: 28-07-2010.