IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 5553 of 2008 Between: M. Suryanaryana S/o. Rama RAo R/o. H.NO.4-60-4/2, LIG plot No.17, Lawsons Bay Colony, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Fisheries, A.P., Hyderabad. .....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 a writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the memos issued by 1st respondent vide No.1809/Fish 1(2)2204-3 dt. 18.02.2005 and Memo No.28964/Fish 1(2) / 2005-1, dt. 31.03.2005 and proceedings issued by the respondent No.2 vide No.5604/A.1/2002 dated 09.06.2005 (to the extent it went against the petitioner) are illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice by setting aside the order passed by Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. NO.5505/05 dt. 07.11.2007 and consequently direct the respondents to release the interest @ 18% for the delayed payment of retirement benefits from the date of retirement of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRIAH W.P. No. 5553 of 2008 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 7.11.2007 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 5505 of 2005. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. The petitioner herein filed O.A. No. 5505 of 2005 before the Tribunal seeking to declare the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in R.C. No. 5604/A1/2002 dated 9.6.2005 and also the memo issued by the 1st respondent vide Memo No. 1809/Fish.1(2)/2204-3 dated 18.2.2005 and Memo No. 28964/Fish.1(2)/2005-1 dated 31.3.2005 as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to sanction and release the interest at the rate of 18% for the delayed payment of pension and pensionary benefits i.e. gratuity and commutation value from the date of his retirement. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and not based on the facts of the case, it is evident from the material available on record that disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner – applicant and vide proceedings dated 9.8.1994 further action against the petitioner was dropped. In the year 1998 the Government issued memo dated 26.11.1998 requesting the Director of Fisheries to release the terminal benefits. The respondents are stated to have paid interest from 28.11.1998 till the date of release of the retrial benefits. The petitioner contends that he is entitled for the interest from the date of retirement. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondents in the counter filed by them before the Tribunal that in view of the fact that the petitioner retired from service in the year 1993 and due to delay in settlement of terminal benefits the further proceedings against the applicant were dropped but not the charges. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal is right in holding that no punishment has been imposed on the petitioner by dropping further action taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already suffered enough in view of the prolonged disciplinary proceedings. As the petitioner was also paid interest on retrial benefits from the date of issuance of memo till the date of releasing the said benefits and having regard to the facts and circumstances, we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. We find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. G. CHANDRAIAH, J. Date: 14-03-2008. MVB.