THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Thursday the 31st day of July 2008 Writ Petition No.16533 of 2008 Between: Mutya China Gopala Krishna S/o late Suryanarayana, Aged 73 years, Occupation : Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer (Retd) R/o H.No.3-10-14, Puppalavari Street, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. Petitioner And: 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 3. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4. Sri I.V.Subba Rao, I.A.S., the then Prl.Secretary to Government, Revenue, Presently working as State Election Commissioner, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. … Respondents For the reasons stated in the accompanying aﬃdavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Orders passed in O.A.No.8702 of 2002 dated 17.11.2006 on the ﬁle of Hon’ble A.P.A.T., as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice and it amounts to violation of Article 21 and 311 of Constitution of India and the same may be set aside including G.O.Ms.No.581 dated 25.08.2000 issued by the 1st respondent and subsequent Government Memo No.50410/VIG-VI(1)/2007 (1) dated 22.9.2007 and extend all retrial beneﬁts due to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Lakshmana Rao Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Government Pleader for Services II Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : - none - The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.16533 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.8702 of 2002 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the said order and also G.O.Ms.No.581 Revenue (Ser.III) Department, dated 25.08.2000 and Memo No.50410/VIG-VI(1)/2007 dated 22.09.2007, issued by the 1st respondent. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner, who was working as Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer at Mentada Mandal in Vizianagaram District, was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau. Immediately after the trap, petitioner was placed under suspension, vide proceedings dated 01.12.1992. While the criminal case was pending before the trial court, the petitioner attained superannuation and retired from service on 31.07.1993 and he was paid provisional pension. Later, the trial court convicted him for the oﬀences with which he was charged. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal before this Court, which was dismissed. Later, petitioner preferred S.L.P., before the Supreme Court, wherein, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him was suspended, pending consideration of the matter on merits. Be that as it may. Pursuant to the conviction by the trial Court, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation, indicating punishment of withholding of 100% pension and gratuity. The petitioner also submitted his explanation. Being not satisﬁed with the explanation, the 1st respondent, by G.O.Ms.No.581 dated 25.08.2000, withheld his 100% pension and gratuity. Questioning the same, petitioner ﬁled O.A.No.6498 of 2000 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was referred to the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat, by proceedings dated 30.03.2001, directed the petitioner to make a representation to the 1st respondent for compassionate allowance, and further directed the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the said representation under Rule 40 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules (for short “the Rules”). Accordingly, petitioner made a representation dated 20.04.2001 to the 1st respondent. However, it was rejected by the 1st respondent, by Memo dated 01.07.2002, stating that there were no valid grounds to entertain the same. Questioning the said Memo and also G.O.Ms.No.581 dated 25.08.2000, petitioner ﬁled O.A.No.8702 of 2002 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that as the validity of G.O.Ms.No.581 dated 25.08.2000 was already questioned in the earlier O.A., it cannot probe into the same, however, as Memo dated 01.07.2002 is a non- speaking order, it set aside the same and remitted the matter to the 1st respondent to pass a reasoned order after examining the representation of the petitioner for compassionate allowance. Subsequently, after calling for remarks from the authorities concerned, the 1st respondent issued a Memo dated 22.09.2007, stating that the petitioner does not deserve compassionate allowance and thereby rejected his representation. Aggrieved thereby, he filed this writ petition. Sri P.Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that as the Lok Adalat has not considered the validity of G.O.Ms.No.581 on merits, the Tribunal ought to have considered the said aspect also and decided the same on merits. He further contended that despite the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent refused to grant compassionate allowance. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.8702 of 2002 dated 17.11.2006 and the Memo of the 1st respondent dated 22.09.2007. The learned Government Pleader for Services.II, on the other hand, contended that as the 1st respondent considered the representation of the petitioner pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal, the remedy available to him is to question the Memo of the 1st respondent dated 22.09.2007 and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. Admittedly, petitioner’s pension and gratuity were withheld, vide G.O.Ms.No.581 dated 25.08.2000, pursuant to his conviction and sentence by the trial Court. When he questioned the validity of G.O.Ms.No.581 in the earlier O.A., the matter was referred to Lok Adalat, wherein, pursuant to the compromise entered into by both the parties, the Lok Adalat, directed the petitioner to make a representation to the 1st respondent, and further directed the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders thereon under Rule 40 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules. The relevant portion of the award of the Lok Adalat reads as under: “The learned G.P., contended that the applicant was convicted by the ACB court and the Government imposed a100% cut in pension and issued G.O.Ms.No.581. He further contended that the pensionary beneﬁts can be extended to him. However, he has no objection for disposal of any representation made by the applicant for giving compassionate allowance as provided for under rule 40 of A.P.Revised Pension Rules. Rule 40 of Revised Pension Rules confers power on the competent authority to sanction compassionate allowance in deserving cases. Whether this case deserves for sanction of any compassionate allowance or not would be decided by the competent authority viz., government under the powers conferred on it under Rule 40 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules. The applicant has agreed to file a representation also. The O.A., is settled to pass appropriate orders on his representation within 2 months under Rule 40 of A.P.Revised Pension Rules. With this award the O.A., is closed. Pursuant to the award, the petitioner made a representation, and the 1st respondent also rejected the same, by Memo dated 22.09.2007. So, now the remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the rejection order by way of ﬁling O.A. However, without challenging the said Memo before the Tribunal, he ﬁled this writ petition. We are of the opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has to approach the Tribunal at the ﬁrst instance and then ﬁle a writ petition, if necessary. No extraordinary ground is made out to entertain writ petition directly. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the Memo No.50410/Vig.VI(1)/2007-1 dated 22.09.2007, issued by the 1st respondent, if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ (Justice Ghulam Mohammed) ___________________ (Justice C.V.Ramulu) 31st July 2008 sh