IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTYFIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 9 7 4 OF 2009. Between: A.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Troop Bazaar, Hyderabad. …. Appellant V/s. Kuchibotla Sambasiva Sastry S/o. Muralidhara Sastri, aged about 57 years, Manager, AP State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Troop Bazaar, Hyderabad. …. Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A.H. Ramakrishna Rao (6767) Counsel for the Respondent: Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi Sri B. Vijaya Bhasker THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 9 7 4 OF 2009. J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 09-6-2009 passed in WPMP. No. 14324 of 2009 in WP.No. 11143 of 2009 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge directed the respondent-bank not to take any steps to recover the amount of Rs.3.9 lakhs from the writ petitioner. 2. The main writ petition has been filed to declare the Proceedings of the respondent in Ref.Admn.A/09-10 dated 25- 5-2009 confirming the orders in Ref.No.A/F-209/07-08 dated 04-12-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders. 3. Facts in brief are that on the basis of an anonymous letter dated 09-09-2008, the writ petitioner was issued a notice vide Ref.Admn.A/F.209, dated 24-09-2008 directing him to furnish the names and dates of birth of his children and whether the writ petitioner or his wife had undergone sterilization operation second time after the birth of his third child. Thereafter, on 13-11-2008 the writ petitioner submitted that his third child was born on 01-6-1984 and that he underwent sterilization operation on 05-8-1983 just about nine months prior to the birth of his third child. The writ petitioner also informed that neither himself nor his wife undergone sterilization operation for the second time. While things stood, the respondent through proceedings dated 04-12-2008 passed orders in Ref.Admn.A/F/209/07-08 withdrawing the two incentive increments and allowances sanctioned him from the date of delivery of third child i.e., 01-6-1984 on the failure of first sterilization operation and directed the writ petitioner to refund the amount paid towards family planning allowances and increments together with interest @ 12% p.a., within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of memo. In case, if he fails to repay the amount, the bank will recover the same from his monthly salary. Thereafter, against the said notice, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the respondent under service Regulation No. 52 of the Regulations stating that no notice was issued before withdrawing the increments. Before considering the appeal, the respondent issued another Proceedings No. Ref.Pay/Acq/2008-09, dated 11-3-2009 directing the writ petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.3,93,778-82 paise together with interest from October 2008 to the date of repayment within fifteen days from the date of receipt of memo. Thereupon, the writ petitioner through letter dated 20-3-2009 informed the respondent that his appeal is pending. Thereafter, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 6074 of 2009 challenging the proceedings of the respondent in Ref. Admn. A/F. 209, dated 24-09-2008 and the consequential Memo. No. Ref/Pay/Acq./2008-09 dated 11-3-2009. Writ Petition No. 6074 of 2009 was disposed of on 25-3-2009 directing the respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of eight weeks. Thereupon the respondent rejected the appeal vide impugned orders in Ref. Admn. A/09-10 dated 25- 5-2009. 4. In WPMP. No. 14324 of 2009 in WP. No.11148 of 2009, which was filed seeking to direct the respondent not to recover any amount in pursuance of the Proceedings of the respondent in Ref.No.Admn.A/09-10 dated 25-5-2009 confirming the orders in Ref.No.Admn. A/F.209/07-08, dated 04-12-2008, pending disposal of the main writ petition, the learned single Judge after hearing both the parties, allowed the WPMP and directed that the Bank shall not take any steps to recover the amount of Rs. 3.9 lakhs from the writ petitioner. 5. Sri A.H. Ramakrishna Rao, the learned standing counsel representing the A.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited would maintain that the respondent-writ petitioner who has drawn two Family Planning increments in a fraudulent manner is not entitled for any sympathetic consideration and the learned single Judge ought to have dismissed WPMP.No. 14324 of 2009 or at least passed orders after filing of counter- affidavit by the appellant-bank. Unless the orders passed by the learned single Judge in WPMP.No. 14324 of 2009 may not be suspended, the respondent may likely to insist for his retirement benefits. However, the eligibility of the respondent- writ petitioner to receive the benefits of two increments under Family Planning Scheme has to be decided in the main writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned standing Counsel for the appellant-bank, we are of the opinion that pendency of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the appellant-bank to release the retirement benefits to the respondent-writ petitioner. But however, the amount of Rs.3.9 lakhs shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank with accrued interest thereon till final adjudication of the main writ petition. Further the appellant-bank shall release all other retirement benefits to the respondent-writ petitioner without giving scope for minimizing or magnifying or precipitating or distorting the retirement benefits of the respondent-writ petitioner while the matter is under adjudication before the learned single Judge. Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi, the learned counsel representing the respondent-writ petitioner would maintain that when the third child of the respondent was born on 01-6-1984 and that when sterilization operation was conducted on 05-8-1983 just about nine months prior to the birth of his third child, then issuance of Proceedings Ref. Admn.A/F/209/07-08 withdrawing two incentive increments and allowances sanctioned to the respondent from the date of delivery of third child, i.e., 01-6-1984 on the failure of first sterilization surgery and further directing the respondent to refund the amount paid towards family planning allowances and increments together with interest @ 12% p.a., within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of memo, merely on an anonymous petition, is totally obnoxious, though the respondent informed that neither himself nor his wife undergone sterilization operation for the second time. The learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner would submit that there may be certain elements in the society, who cannot look the prosperity of others will certainly create this type of trouble by dropping anonymous petitions against the persons like the respondent- writ petitioner, during the evening of his life time. But in our view the anonymous petition will always be illusory and its contents are not gospel of truth or propounded ground reality. Under the above circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to post the Writ Petition No. 11148 of 2009 for final hearing on 19-10-2009 on the top of the list. 7. With the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI _______________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 31-07-2009. I s L