THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.36889 of 1998 Dated: 23.01.2008 Between V. Subba Rao …Petitioner And A.P. Small Scale Industries Development Corporation, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Parisram Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.36889 of 1998 ORDER: Heard Sri S.Raju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Neither a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation nor is there any representation on behalf of Sri G.Venkata Malla Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, though his name is printed in the cause list. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that though he took voluntary retirement from service on 30.11.1996 and he was permitted to retire as Deputy Manager with effect from that date, the respondent had not paid his terminal benefits to the extent of Rs.1,68,350/-, which, according to the petitioner, includes voluntary retirement scheme compensation, G.P.F., and gratuity etc. In the affidavit it is stated that cheque bearing No.243985, dated 30.12.1996 for Rs.92,264/-, cheque bearing No.243986, dated 31.01.1997 for Rs.92,264/- and cheque bearing No.243987, dated 28.02.1997 for Rs.92,264/-, drawn in favour of the petitioner were issued in his favour after deducting the dues payable by him to the Corporation. The very first cheque No.243985, dated 30.12.1996, was not honoured by the banker and was returned with an endorsement that sufficient funds were not available in the account. According to the petitioner, the Corporation is due an amount of Rs.60,350/- towards voluntary retirement scheme compensation, Rs.8,000/- towards G.P.F amount and Rs.1,00,000/- towards gratuity. The petitioner would state that, on enquiry, he came to know that these amounts were withheld on certain allegations based on the internal audit of Kallamala Contract works given by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. According to the petitioner, there were no departmental proceedings against him while he was in service or after his retirement and since the master and service relationship ceased, the respondent could not have continued with the departmental enquiry. Sri S.Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that no enquiry has been held against the petitioner till date. In the absence of any counter-affidavit and since there is no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation, this Court has necessarily to go by the averments made in support of the writ petition and is required to accept them as true. It is also not known as to whether there is any Rule applicable to the respondent-Corporation, which empowers them to conduct or continue the departmental enquiry against their employees even after the employee has retired from service. Failure on the part of the respondent to pay the terminal benefits for the past more than a decade would necessitate their being directing to pay interest to the petitioner on the amounts due. Ends of justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondent-Corporation, if it is authorized by law, to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and complete the exercise within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in case the respondent fails to do so, to pay the terminal benefits to the petitioner within two months thereafter. In case no disciplinary action has been taken or in case the petitioner is absolved in such a disciplinary enquiry, he shall be entitled for payment of interest on the belated payment of terminal benefits @ 6% per annum from the date when the terminal benefits were liable to be paid till the date of actual payment. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 23.01.2008 va