THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20828 of 2002 DATE: 11.02.2010 Between: D.N.Kodhandaraman …Petitioner and Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and others …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI J.UGRANARASIMHA COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS : SRI M.ADINARAYANA RAJU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20828 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in ordering recovery of Rs.44,214/- in 103 instalments from the pension of the petitioner vide proceedings, dated 29.08.2001 issued by respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri J.Ugranarasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner is a retired Store Keeper of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (for short “TTD”). Later, it was found that he failed to handover certain items. Therefore, the departmental enquiry was initiated against him and another employee. After thorough enquiry, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner is responsible for causing pecuniary loss to the TTD and directing recovery of a sum of Rs.44,214/- in 103 instalments from the pension of the petitioner. A perusal of the proceeding sheet shows that the impugned order has not been stayed by this Court. Though the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents is unable to state whether the impugned order has been implemented, in the absence of an interim order, it is reasonable to presume that the said order would have been implemented and the amount recovered. Be that as it may, at the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in GORAKPUR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS v. DR. SHITLA PRASAD NAGENDRA AND OTHERS[1], contended that the respondents have no authority to recover the alleged loss from the petitioner’s pension. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I find no merit therein. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Rules’) are made applicable to the TTD. Rule 9(1) of the Rules, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: “9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension:- (1) The State Government reserves themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused, to the Government and to the local authority if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement.” From the Rule reproduced above, it is clear that where a departmental enquiry is held in which it is found that the retired employee is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence on account of which pecuniary loss is caused, the employer is entitled to recover the loss from his pension or gratuity. The judgment in GORAKPUR UNIVERSITY (1 supra) has no application to the facts of the present case because that was a case where penal rent was sought to be recovered from the pension of the retired employee on the ground that he did not vacate the quarters. While observing that, the Supreme Court held that the University cannot be held to be entitled to recover by way of adjustment disputed sums or claims from the pension, gratuity and provident fund amounts. In the present case, the amount, which was sought to be recovered, is towards the pecuniary loss that was found to have been caused by the petitioner in the departmental proceedings. The merits of the decision taken by the TTD in the departmental proceedings are not contested. Therefore, the TTD is entitled to recover from the pension of the petitioner the sum representing the loss caused to it. Hence, I am of the opinion that in view of Rule 9 of the Rules and following the order passed in the departmental proceedings, recovery of amount by the TTD is legal and valid. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.26072 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th FEBRUARY, 2010. kvni [1] AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 2433