IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 22423 of 2008 Between: Y.P.Prabhudas S/o. Sayanna o/o. The Assistant Director of Agricultural, Khanapur, Adilabad District, R/o. Nirmal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, A.P. Near L.B.Stadium, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint director of Agriculture, Adilabad,, Adilabad District. 3 The Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Khanapur, Adilabad District. 4 The Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Nirmal, Adilabad District. 5 The Account General (A&E), A.P., Saifabad, hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ order or direction, certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction, after calling for the records relating to, and connected with the judgment of A.P. administrative Tribunal dated 25.04.2005 in O.A.No. 4565/2001 as well as the order of the 1st respondent in impugned Letter No. Pen.(3)1713/97, dated 15.06.2001 while, recovering the amount of Rs. 69,980-90, from service pension and Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to release the remaining 20% of pensionery beneﬁts of the petitioenr which was withhold by the respondents including interest and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRC.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.22423 OF 2008 ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 25.04.2005 in O.A. No.4565 of 2001 on the ﬁle of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), by virtue of which the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the amounts covered by the impugned order therein. 2. The petitioner while working as an Agricultural Oﬃcer applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds on 29.3.1995, and accordingly he retired from service on 03-05-1995. Subsequently, he was paid 80% as anticipatory pension and no orders were passed for ﬁxation of his pension. The petitioner ﬁled O.A.No.66 of 1998 before the Tribunal for direction to the respondents to ﬁx the pension as per the proposals submitted by the third respondent on 7.9.1995 and the Tribunal disposed of the same with a direction to the authorities to clear the pensionary beneﬁts within a period of three months. The ﬁrst respondent by an order dated 23.3.1998 stopped the payment of all pensionary beneﬁts including DCRG on the ground that there are dues from the petitioner pertaining to cooperative institutions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled O.A.No.3188 of 1998 and the same was disposed of directing the ﬁrst respondent to issue notice to the petitioner giving details of the amounts which have to be accounted for by the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order, and on receipt of such notice, the petitioner was directed to give details relating to remittances already made by him within another ﬁfteen days and on receipt of the explanation of the petitioner, all the respondents were directed to take further action for settling pension and other pensionary benefits due to petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of explanation of the petitioner. Then the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.5.2000 to the fourth respondent, but the fourth respondent without considering his explanation as well as remittance particulars, issued a letter dated 05-07-2000. Aggrieved by the said letter, the petitioner ﬁled O.A.No.5747 of 2000 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to examine the reply given by the petitioner along with the remittance particulars and pass appropriate orders relating to the recovery of amounts from the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of that order, and till he passes orders, no recovery shall be made from the petitioner. Then the ﬁrst respondent issued proceedings dated 20.12.2000 ordering recovery of Rs.69,980-90ps from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner again ﬁled O.A.No.1714 of 2001 and the same was disposed of on 21.3.2001 directing the ﬁrst respondent to re-examine the matter and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner within a further period of eights weeks from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner. But, the ﬁrst respondent issued similar proceedings dated 15.6.2001 wherein he requested the Accountant General (A&E) to recover an amount of Rs.69,980.90ps from the service pension and gratuity of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner ﬁled the present O.A. and the same was dismissed holding that the respondents have examined the case of the petitioner in detail and found that still he is liable to pay the amount of Rs.69,980-90ps . 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the letter dated 21.11.2001 addressed by the third respondent to the second respondent with regard to payment of Rs.30,840/- by the petitioner, the petitioner has admitted to pay the same and so far as the remaining amount of Rs.29,465/- under NWDPRA, Beltha Road Watershed Programme, is concerned, it was mentioned in the said letter that “the petitioner has stated that Sri M.A.Wahab, Agricultural Extension Oﬃcer, Bhainsa, had received the stocks under the schemes -1990.” Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay Rs.29,465/- as claimed by the respondents. As per the said letter dated 21.11.2001, the alleged due payable by the petitioner is Rs.60,305/-. Hence, the writ petition may be allowed directing the respondents to release the remaining 20% of pensionary benefits of the petitioner 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to make a representation before the authorities by giving detailed particulars with regard to the amount of Rs.29,465/-, which the petitioner claims to be not due to the authorities. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to make a representation before the authorities regarding the amount of Rs.29,465/-, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the authorities shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay the admitted amount of Rs.30,840/-. Subject to the determination of the amount of Rs.29,465/-, the remaining pensionary beneﬁts of the petitioner shall be released by the authorities concerned. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 15-10-2008 Stp