IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs : 565 & 16511 of 2006 WRIT PETITION NO: 565 OF 2006 Between: A.Rama Koteswara Rao, S/o.Late Anjaneyulu, R/o.501, Classic Enclave, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad, Rep by its Chief General Manager. 2 The General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. 3 The Dy.General Manager & Circle Development Officer, Pesronnel and HRD Department, Stat Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad, 4 Sri Jacob, Dy.General Manager & Circle Development Officer, Pesronnel and HRD Department, Stat Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad, ...RESPONDENTS 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 issuance of the Order PER-16/5256 dt.31-12-2005 from the file of the 3rd Respondent and after pursuing the same, quash the said order dt.31-12-2005 by declaring it as arbitrary, illegal, malafide and contrary to the interim order dt.24-11-2005 in WPMP.No.32171 of 2005 in WP No.25018 of 2005 and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to sanction the pensionary benefits to the Petitioner with interest @ 24% p.a. and with all other consequential benefits, monetary and otherwise and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: Mr.K. Srinivasa Murthy WRIT PETITION NO: 16511 OF 2006 Between: A. Rama Koteswara Rao, S/o. Late Anjaneyulu, R/o. Flat No. 501, Classic Enclave, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. Rep by its Chief General Manager. 2 The Dy. General Manager & Circle Development Officer, Personnel and HRD Department, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Masulipatnam, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Order No. PER/16/3 dated 31-3-2006 from the file of the 2nd Respondent and declare the same in so far as it relates to the fixation of the date of retirement of the retirement of the Petitioner as 31-3-2006 and as well as making lien of his Employees Provident Fund balance to the Joint Housing Loan sanctioned by the 3rd Respondent under public Housing scheme vide order dated 10-1-2005 as arbitrary, illegal, malafide and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondents to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner, including provident Fund balance and also award interest 24% p.a. w.e.f 31-5-2005 and with all other consequential benefits, monetary and otherwise and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY (SC FOR SBI) The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: The petitioner has been functioning as Assistant General Manager in the State Bank of India. In the context of his retirement, be it on the basis of an application for voluntary retirement, or on attaining age of superannuation, controversy existed and several writ petitions have been filed. Ultimately, the petitioner was retired from service, with effect from 31.3.2006, vide order, dated 31.12.2005. Controversy also prevailed about the extension of retirement benefits to the petitioner. W.P.No.565 of 2006 is filed, assailing the order dated 31.12.2005, whereas W.P.No.16511 of 2006 is filed, challenging an order, dated 31.3.2006, through which part of the retirement benefits were extended to the petitioner. The petitioner had raised several grounds, in both the writ petitions. The respondents filed counter affidavit, dealing with the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In view of the fact that the petitioner had been permitted to retire from service, this court directed the respondents to determine the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. Through an order dated 18.4.2008, the respondents have paid a sum of Rs.12,50,002-53 ps., representing the arrears of Provident Fund, Gratuity and pension, on ad hoc basis. Recoveries were also affected to the amounts of Overdraft and loss of Laptop. In addition to this amount, the petitioner is rendered eligible to be paid the compensation. With this, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. The writ petitions are, accordingly, closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 21st April 2008 PAN