THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14053 of 2007 Date: 31.05.2010 Between : G.V.S.V. Prasada Rao (died per L.R. Petitioner No.2) … Petitioners and The General Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Khammam and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14053 of 2007 ORAL ORDER : This writ petition is filed by Sri G.V.S.V. Prasada Rao, seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the pensionary benefits in spite of lapse of more than eight years of his retirement as arbitrary and illegal and further sought a direction to the respondents to release the retiral benefits. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner G.V.S.V. Prasada Rao died and, therefore, his son G.B.S.S. Papa Rao was brought on record as the 2nd petitioner, being the legal representative of the original petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the service of the erstwhile L.M.B. (Land Mortgage Bank) as Supervisor in the year 1966-67. Subsequently, the erstwhile L.M.B. was ultimately merged into District Cooperative Central Bank and the petitioner was absorbed in the respondent-District Cooperative Central Bank at Khammam. While working as Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, the petitioner was awarded “Certificate of Appreciation” for the progress shown in recovery of the bank loan amounts. While so, just before his retirement, the petitioner was issued a Memo Rc.No.2082/Estt/F.No.43/98-99, dated 2.9.1998, calling for his explanation in incurring heavy expenditure while working at Branch Office at Kunavaram in 1994. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.9.1998. However, he was served with another reminder on the same day i.e., on 2.9.1998 alleging that he had issued loans to 46 members without proper verification and also issued advances to the employees of the bank and hence he was called upon to recover the same by 10.9.1998. The petitioner gave a detailed reply to the said Memo along with the recovery statements showing all the recoveries and the remittances to the bank. However, no communication was received by the petitioner in that regard. Ultimately, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 30.9.1998. He was sanctioned Gratuity of Rs.2,65,000/- and a Memo dated 30.9.1998 was served to him showing that the said amount would be credited to his S.B. Account. Though the petitioner was granted 212 days of earned leave for encashment, the said amount was not credited to his account. Inspite of the petitioner issuing a reminder on 20.7.1999 for release of the retirement benefits, no amounts were released. However, he was informed that the amounts were released and kept in suspense account in his name in the Head Office. Number of representations made by him went invain. As on 21.8.2002, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.11,500/- towards old arrears, Rs.11,471/- towards interest, Rs.4,250/- towards penalty, and Rs.4,408/- towards interest. In all, a sum of Rs.31,629/- was deducted from the suspense due account. Inspite of the said deductions, no amount was paid to the petitioner. Therefore, aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in releasing the pensionary benefits inspite of lapse of eight years of his retirement, he filed the present writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that while working as Branch Manager, Bhadrachalam Branch, petitioner had committed various irregularities and inspite of issuing several Memos, the petitioner had submitted his explanations to some of the Memos only. It is also stated that due to various administrative reasons no action was taken nor any disciplinary proceedings could be initiated nor any officer was appointed to enquire into the matter. It is also stated that an amount of Rs.1,34,291/- from out of the amount of Rs.2,65,100/- payable towards Gratuity was credited to his S.B. A/c.No.3424 with the District Cooperative Central Bank, Khammam Head Office Branch and the same had been withdrawn by the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the facts stated in the counter affidavit, it must be deemed that whatever the disciplinary proceedings launched against the petitioner has been abated due to his death and the 2nd petitioner, being the sole legal representative of the original petitioner, is entitled for all the retirement benefits of his father, as if there was no disciplinary proceedings decided against the original petitioner during his life time. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not paying the retirement benefits of the petitioner for such a long period is liable to be deprecated. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to release all the retirement benefits of the original petitioner, including the Gratuity, to the 2nd petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amounts already paid by the respondent management towards the retirement benefits of the petitioner may be given credit to. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 31.05.2010. NOTE: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14053 of 2007 31.05.2010 (Msr)