IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 24099 of 2000 Between: V.V. Huvinavar s/o Sri R.Venkataswamy. ..... PETITIONER AND The Senior Divisional Operations Manager, South Central Railway, Hubli and others .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Assailing the order dated 6.6.2000 made in O.A. No. 1127 of 1999 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dismissing the same and confirming the order dated 11.5.1998 passed by the first respondent compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and the concurring orders of the second and third respondents dated 7.8.1998 and 19.4.1999 respectively, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Station Master on 22.12.1979 and posted at Bhistenati, Hubli Division and promoted as Station Master in 1985 and as Deputy Station Superintendent in 1993. On 12.11.1995 the petitioner after recording particulars of the train No. 285, which left Badami Station at 7.00 hours, requested Sri T.P.Shivakumar, Leave Reserve Assistant Station Master to take over the charge from him to go over to Hospital for treatment of severe stomach pain and even though the said Shivakumar, expressed willingness, but due to emergency, taking over charge and relieving of charge could not be recorded. In the meanwhile, checking staff consisting of Divisional Safety Officer and the Divisional Medical Officer subjected the petitioner to undergo breath analyzer test, which proved positive for intoxication. Therefore, the first respondent issued charge sheet for various charges dated 18.2.1996 and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 9.10.1997 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service by order dated 11.5.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the same was rejected by order dated 7.8.1998. The revision filed against the said order was also rejected by the third respondent by order dated 19.4.1999. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed OA No.1127 of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was also dismissed by the order impugned herein. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the crucial witness Mr. T.P.Shiva Kumar was not examined, whose evidence could have negatived the charges framed against him. The Tribunal in paragraph No. 8 of the order has observed that since the petitioner could not produce any tangible evidence to the effect that he has handed over the duty to Mr. Shivakumar, his contention that he was relieved from duty, cannot be accepted. It is also observed that the fact that Mr. Shivakumar attended two trains viz., Train Nos. 231 and 240 itself, proves that he was relieved of the duty, does not relieve him of the burden to prove that he has handed over the charge to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the retirement benefits to which the employee was entitled to, were not paid in time and, hence, the respondent – Railways are liable to pay interest on the delayed payment while it is the contention of Mr. A.Krishnam Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had filed application for payment of retirement benefits in November, 2009 and after processing the same, the benefits were paid in the month of March, 2010 itself. Hence, the question of paying interest on delayed payments does not arise. As can be seen from the records, the post retirement benefits were paid in the month of March, 2010 on an application made for payment thereof. As such, when there is no delay in payment of the retirement benefits, the question of paying interest thereon, does not arise. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada July 21, 2010 MAS