THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.7097 OF 2009 Dated: 11 .11.2009 Between: Mohd. Aftab Ali Khan … Petitioner And 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.7097 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner, who worked in the post of a Lecturer in the 3rd respondent college, has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2004. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 3rd respondent college in not forwarding the pension papers of the petitioner to the Accountant General as arbitrary and illegal and for consequential directions. It is stated that the posts held by the petitioner in the 3rd respondent college were admitted to grant-in-aid and he was all through drawing salary in the aided posts. However, the 3rd respondent failed to forward his pension papers to the office of the Accountant General, Government of A.P., even after five years from the date of the petitioner’s retirement on the ground that the petitioner while in service had obtained various loans from various Banks and that the Banks were making claims from the 3rd respondent College. In the circumstances, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent - Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education - to intervene and pursuant thereto by proceedings dated 8.11.2007 the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent college to forward the pension papers of the petitioner to the Accountant General, A.P., Hyderabad, subject to the condition that the petitioner executes an undertaking to the effect that he will repay the loan amounts from his pensionery benefits. It is stated that though the petitioner had given such an undertaking on stamp paper, the 3rd respondent College failed to settle the pensionery benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. This Court while issuing Rule Nisi, by order dated 30.04.2009 in WPMP.No.9288 of 2009 directed the 3rd respondent college to forward the pension papers of the petitioner to the Accountant General as per the directions of the 2nd respondent immediately, however stayed disbursement of pension until further orders. It is not in dispute that in compliance with the order of this Court, the 3rd respondent has forwarded the pension papers of the petitioner to the Accountant General and the 2nd respondent by letter dated 4.7.2009 addressed the Accountant General to arrange to verify the pension proposals. Having made such verification, the office of the Accountant General vide proceedings dated 24.08.2009 informed the 2nd respondent that the petitioner’s pension has been sanctioned and a copy of the said letter was also marked to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent College, it is contended that since the petitioner is heavily indebted to various Banks and the 3rd respondent College was served with several legal notices stating that the 3rd respondent undertook irrevocably to remit the monthly instalments and other charges towards the liability of the petitioner to the Banks, in case the pensionery benefits are disbursed to the petitioner it can cause pecuniary loss to the 3rd respondent college. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material on record, the entire controversy has arisen on account of the undertaking said to have been given by the then Principal of the 3rd respondent College to repay the loans availed by the petitioner from various Banks by making appropriate deductions from the salary of the petitioner. Whereas the petitioner denies any such undertaking by the 3rd respondent College, while referring to the legal notices issued from various Banks, it is contended by the 3rd respondent College that unless the entire amounts due to the Banks are repaid and the loan accounts are settled the petitioner‘s pensionery benefits cannot be released. However, nothing could be placed before this Court by either party to show what kind of guarantee / security was furnished in favour of the Banks from which the petitioner had availed the loans. The parties are also not clear whether the undertaking was given on behalf of the 3rd respondent College or whether the then Principal in his individual capacity stood as guarantor to the loans availed by the petitioner. It is not possible for this Court to make any enquiry into such a disputed question of fact and to resolve the controversy while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent – Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, who is the competent authority to accord sanction for pensionery benefits, to make an enquiry into the question whether the objection raised by the 3rd respondent college as to its liability is factually correct. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to make an enquiry into the rival claims made by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent college, after giving them opportunity to make their representations and pass appropriate orders with regard to the liability of the 3rd respondent, if any, in respect of the loans availed by the petitioner from various Banks. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 11.11.2009 gbs