IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8635 of 2008 Between: L.Surya Narayana S/o.late Seetanna APEPDCL, R/o.Jagannadhapuram Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, (Operation Circle APEPDCL,, Visakhapatnam 2 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, (Operation -I) Zonal - I,APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the 2nd respondent herein has no right whatsoever to stop provisional pension of the petitioner though he is entitled provisional pension as per Section 52(B) of AP Provisional Pension Rules, 1980 during pendency of the judicial proceedings and dismissing the petitioner from service after attaining superannuation is illegal, improper and unjust consequently direct the 2nd respondent to continue to pay the provisions pension to the petitioner by suspending the impugned proceedings vide Memo No.DEE/O/ZONE- I/USP/AD/U1/D.No.322/2008 dated 14.3.2008 of the 2nd respondent dismissing the petitioner from service and stopping the provisional pension of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.A.PADMA Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Line Inspector in the Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, Visakhapatnam. A trap was laid against him by ACB on 30.12.1999 and he was caught red-handed, while receiving some amount. While the prosecution was initiated against him in C.C.No.19 of 2004 on the file of the Special Court for ACB Cases-cum- III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, departmental proceedings were initiated. When the departmental proceedings as well as the criminal cases were pending, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.06.2006. Therefore, as required under the A.P. (Revised) Pension Rules, 1980 (for short “the Rules”), he was sanctioned provisional pension. Through its judgment, dated 14.02.2008, the criminal Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Based on the said judgment, the second respondent passed an order, dated 14.03.2008, dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 30.06.2006. As a consequence, the payment of provisional pension was also stopped. This writ petition is filed for a declaration that the stoppage of provisional pension to the petitioner is contrary to the Rules and for a direction to continue the same. Heard Smt.A.Padma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the service of the petitioner is governed by the A.P. (Revised) Pension Rules. Rules 9 and 52 of the Rules cover the situation where an employee attains the age of superannuation, even while the departmental, or judicial proceedings are pending against him. The said Rules make it amply clear that the employee may be sanctioned provisional pension, subject to the out come of those proceedings. Accordingly, the petitioner was sanctioned the provisional pension under Rule 52 of the Rules. Shortly thereafter, not only the judicial proceedings, but also the departmental proceedings ended against the petitioner. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal against the order of dismissal and criminal appeal against the judgment rendered by the trial Court. However, once he stood dismissed from service, the question of requiring the respondents to continue the provisional pension, does not arise. It is only when the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment in criminal case is allowed and if the same has any impact on the order of dismissal, that the petitioner can take steps for resumption of the pension. As long as the order of dismissal remains, the question of directing the respondents to continue the provisional pension to the petitioner, does not arise. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to take necessary steps depending upon the out come of the appeals preferred by him against the order of dismissal and judgment in the criminal case. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.22.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}