THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.26712 of 2009 ORDER : (per Justice Noushad Ali) -- The facts are in a narrow compass. The petitioner was initially appointed as District Munsif and later promoted as Sub-Judge on 24-02-1986. He was later promoted as District & Sessions Judge, Grade-II on 23-03-1992 and as Grade-I on 05-12-2000. He was also granted super time scale on 26-05-2005. While the petitioner was working as the Chairman of A.P. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, he was retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years on 30-06-2006. However, he was continued in service and worked as such till 22-08-2006. The petitioner was served with an order vide G.O.Ms.No.121 Law (LA&J. SC.F) Department, dated 22-08-2006 whereby he was ordered to retire from service on 30-06-2006 (AN) indicating that the said notification would take effect from 30-06-2006. It was also indicated in the aforesaid order that three months pay and allowances (last drawn) should be drawn and paid to the petitioner as recommended by the High Court of A.P. vide letter Roc.No.4079/2006-B Spl., dated 03-07- 2006 issued by the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of A.P. The petitioner complied with the orders in G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 22- 08-2006 and handed over charge on 23-08-2006. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is entitled for three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice in addition to the payment of salary for the month of July, 2006 and 22 days in the month of August, 2006 during which period he discharged his duties. As the respondents failed to pay the pay and allowances, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. 2. The first respondent filed counter stating that as per Rule 44 (1)(b) (b) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the appointing authority should give notice in writing to the Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire in public interest or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. It is further stated that on receipt of proposals from the second respondent i.e., Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of A.P., vide Letter Roc.No.4079/2006-B Spl., dated 03-07-2006, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 22-08-2006 and retired the petitioner from service with effect from 30-06-2006, the date of age of superannuation of 58 years. It is further stated that the petitioner is eligible for payment of pay and allowances for three months with effect from 30-06-2006 only, on which date the notification came into force and since the petitioner was already paid pay and allowances for the months of July and August, 2006, the petitioner is entitled for one month salary for the month of September, 2006. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation of 58 years on 30-06-2006. However, he was continued to work till 22-08-2006 and retired by virtue of orders in G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 22-08-2006. The Government vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 22-08-2006 directed payment of three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice as per Rule 44 (1)(b) (b) of A.P. Revised pension Rules. However the same has not been paid on the ground that the petitioner was already paid pay and allowances for the months of July and August, 2006 and that he is entitled to only for one month pay i.e., September, 2006. 5. Under Rule 44 (1) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, a Government servant may be required by the appointing authority to retire in public interest at any time after he has completed 33 years of qualifying service but before attaining 58 years age and as per proviso (b), the appointing authority has to give notice in writing to the Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire in the public interest or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. Applying the same, the petitioner is entitled for three months pay and allowances as he was not given notice of retirement and the first respondent also does not dispute the same. The only controversy is whether the three months period should be reckoned from 30-06-2006 on which date the petitioner was ordered to retire vide notification in G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 22-08-2006 or from 22-08-2006 till which date the petitioner was continued in service. In our opinion the petitioner actually worked during the month of July, 2006 and also for a period of 22 days in the month of August, 2006 for which he is entitled for regular pay. The object of Rule 44 (1) (b)(b) appears to be preparatory for retirement and provide sustenance before a Government servant would actually demit office. Further, there cannot be retirement with retrospective effect. In that view of the matter, the three months period should be reckoned from 23-08-2006 and the petitioner is entitled for three months pay and allowances from the said date. He is also entitled for his regular pay for the month of July, 2006 and 22 days in the month of August, 2006. 6. We, therefore, allow the Writ Petition and direct the respondents to pay three months pay and allowances to the petitioner reckoned from 23-08-2006 and regular pay for the month of July, 2006 and 22 days in the month of August, 2006, if not already paid. No costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 31st December, 2009. skmr