HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17047 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “To declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not releasing the amounts in respect of the encashment earned leave and provident fund for an amount of Rs.70,064/- with interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payments as illegal and arbitrary.” 2. The case set out in the writ petition is as follows: He had worked as ‘paid secretary’ for Bayyapugaripalle PACS, Palamaner Mandal, Chittor District and retired from the service on 30- 06-2008 without any remarks. After his retirement, he made several representations to the 1st respondent claiming retirement benefits such as encashment of earned leave and provident fund etc., which he is entitled to. The 1st respondent instructed the 5th respondent to release the said amounts, but the 5th respondent has not released those amounts due to the petitioner. On the other hand, the 5th respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner misappropriated the funds of the 1st respondent-Society to an extent of Rs.5,445/- by way of collecting salaries in excess and also directed the concerned authority to stop the retirement benefits which are payable to the petitioner and to recover that amount of Rs.5,445/- from the properties of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner requested the 1st respondent to withhold the said amount of Rs.5,445/- and release the balance amount in his favour but the respondents 1 and 2 are not responding. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, appearing for the respondents, and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the earned leave and provident fund of the petitioner are not being paid by the office of the 1st respondent on the ground that he joined in a strike period for more than three months in the year 2008, and in fact, the other retired employees worked as ‘paid secretaries’ in other societies were paid those amounts excluding the payment for the strike period, but, so far as the petitioner is concerned, the 1st respondent has been intentionally stopping the payment due to some personal grudge against him and therefore, the matter may be remanded with a direction to send it to the office of the 4th respondent for the purpose of paying the amounts to the petitioner taking into consideration all relevant factors. He also has requested the Court to direct the 4th respondent to conduct necessary enquiry in the matter. 5. There is some difference between what is stated in the writ petition that on the ground that the petitioner misappropriated certain amount, he has been denied the payments and what is contended that the payments are stopped on the ground that he participated in a strike for three months. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, appearing for the respondents, has opposed the petition. 7. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the payment of the retirement benefits? 8. It is pertinent to note here that the office of the respondents is denying the full payments of earned leave and provident fund in question to the petitioner on the ground that he participated in the said strike period of three months during 2008 or otherwise. It is also important to note here that according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, similarly placed employees were given their earned leave and provident fund amounts even though they participated in the strike. 9. In view of the relevant factors, the 1st respondent is directed to resolve the issue within two months of receiving this order. If there is some delay in deciding the question of payment of salary for the strike period, he shall be paid the balance amount immediately while taking another one month to dispose of the question of payment of salary for the strike period. He is to be treated on par with the other employees placed on same footing along with him. On the other hand, if he involved in any misappropriation of the funds of the office, necessary enquiry is to be conducted within six months from the date of this order and then consider the question of payment of his salary. Further, the 4th respondent is directed to look into the matter and issue necessary instructions to the 1st respondent for the proper disposal of the matter, he being the superior authority of the 1st respondent. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ 14th December 2011 G.KRISHNAMOHAN REDDY,J kvr