HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 1973 OF 2002 DATED 9th SEPTEMBER, 2011. Between Y.Rajeswari ……Petitioner and The Government of AP, rep. By its Secretary, Industries and Companies Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad and ors. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 1973 OF 2002 ORDER: The inaction of the respondents in paying the terminal benefits and voluntary retirement scheme benefits to the petitioner is challenged in the present writ petition. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the late husband of the petitioner, by name, Y.Manikya Reddy was an employee of the third respondent-spinning mills limited in the capacity of Assistant Spinning Master. Pursuant to the voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the second respondent based on G.O.Ms.No. 35, Industries & Commerce (TEX) Department, dated 10th January, 2000, the husband of the petitioner and some other eligible employees made applications under the said scheme and the same were accepted by the third respondent, which in turn, intimated the same to the second respondent vide letter dated 16.7.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner and other employees were relieved from their services. While the things stood thus, the husband of the petitioner died on 9.5.1999 due to heart attack. The petitioner made an application on 7.6.1999 to the respondent authorities seeking payment of terminal benefits including voluntary retirement scheme benefits. The second respondent, having received the said application, paid an advance of Rs.25,000/- towards part payment of gratuity amount and directed the petitioner to approach after a period of six months for receiving the balance amount. Though the petitioner moved from pillar to post, the respondents have not yet paid the voluntary retirement scheme benefits. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that in as much as the said Y.Manikya Reddy expired on 9.5.1999, i.e. before the cut-off date fixed by the first respondent viz 1.8.1999, he is not eligible for the voluntary retirement scheme benefits. However, the legal heir of the said employee, the petitioner herein, was paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards part payment of gratuity under proceedings dated 15.7.1999. It was denied in the counter that the petitioner worked as an employee with the third respondent from1.9.1980 in the capacity of Assistant Spinning Master in the third respondent organization as per his service register. After introduction of the voluntary retirement scheme under G.O.Ms.No. 35,dated 10.1.2010, the common cadre employees of the Mills including SPINFED employees who are on the rolls were relived on 17.1.2000. It is stated that the petitioner’s husband was not on the rolls as on 1.8.1999 since he died on 9.5.1999 i.e., before the cut off date. However, on receipt of the representation from the petitioner, the third respondent sanctioned an amount of Rs.25,000/- as an advance to the petitioner as a special case pending settlement of the gratuity payable to the said late Y.Manikya Reddy. They denied the averment of the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband had been relived under VRS and was not paid the VRS benefits. While concluding the counter, it is stated that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid to the petitioner on the demise of her husband on 9.5.1999 and the balance amount of gratuity of Rs.57,000/- could not be paid on account of paucity of funds and the same would be paid on receipt of the funds from the Government. Heard the learned Counsel on either side. Perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioner was an employee of the third respondent-mills having worked at Karimnagar, Guntakal, Nandyal, Nellore and Chirala. Pursuant to the introduction of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the husband of the petitioner applied for the same. The Government have issued guidelines in G.O.Ms.No. 35, dated 10.1.2000 for implementation of the VRS for the employees of A.P. State Federation of Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited (SPINFED) and common cadre employees of the mills with cut-off date as 1.8.1999. As per the said guidelines, employees of the third respondent were relieved from service on 17.1.2000. As on the date of reliving from service, the petitioner was not on the rolls of the third respondent since he died on 9.5.1999, much before the cut-off date. It is the case of the respondents that as the husband of the petitioner died before the cut-off date and before he is relieved from service, he is not entitled to the payment of benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced under G.O.Ms.No. 35, dated 10.1.2000. It is also their case that pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner on 07.06.1999 for payment of gratuity on occasion of death of her husband on 9.5.1999, third respondent paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- in advance pending final settlement of gratuity payable to her. In the counter affidavit, they agreed that the petitioner is due and payable balance amount of gratuity of Rs.57,090/-, however, the same could not be paid on account of paucity of funds. Thus it is clear and is not in dispute that before issuance of the said G.O.Ms.No. 35, dated 10.1.2000 introducing voluntary retirement scheme; well before fixing the cut-off date as 1.8.1999 through the circulars dated 3.7.1999 and 2.8.1999 as specified in the said GO; and before relieving of the similarly placed employees of the respondent-mills on 17.1.2000, the husband of the petitioner was not on rolls as on 1.8.1999 since he died on 9.5.1999 during his employment. Needless to observe, as the petitioner’s husband died before the cut-off date and during the course of employment, the question of releasing the benefits of G.O.Ms.No. 35, dated 10.1.2000 under Voluntary Retirement Scheme does not arise. It is stated in the counter affidavit that balance amount of gratuity of Rs.57,090/- is due and payable to the petitioner, which is not contradicted. As such, there shall be a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the balance gratuity amount due and payable to the petitioner with 6% interest per annum, at an early date, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 9th September, 2011. Msnro