IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 384 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 05/11/2007 in WP NO: 8754 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) The Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director, Lalapet, Hyderabad. 2) The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co- operative, Lalapet, Hyderabad. 3) The Executive Director, Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co- operative Federation Ltd., Lalapet, Hyderabad. ... APPELLANTS AND 1) G.V. Subramanyum S/o. Mallaiah R/o. Plot No.26-B, H.No.55-5, Road No.1, Krishnanagar Colony, Moulali, Hyderabad. 2) State of A.P. Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Dairy Development & Animal Husbandry Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.M.DILIP RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.S.SRINIVAS Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR.S. VENKATESWARA RAO The Court made the following: Oral Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by an order dated 05.11.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in WVMP No.2588 of 2007 in WPMP No.11207 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.8754 of 2007, this appeal has been filed. 2. The impugned order is an interim order whereby the appellant – employer has been directed to make payment of the retrial benefits to the respondent – employee, who has retired from service under voluntary retirement scheme. 3. It was the case of the employer that the employee had misappropriated Rs.92,667/- and, therefore, the said amount was to be recovered from the respondent – employee. 4. Admittedly, the amount payable to the respondent – employee is more and, therefore, the learned Single Judge directed the employer to withhold the afore-stated amount and pay the remaining amount to the employee. Against the afore-stated interim order, this appeal has been filed. 5. We find no reason to interfere with the order, which is absolutely just and proper. The learned Single Judge has permitted the employer to withhold the amount, which is to be recovered from the employee, but the employer has no right to withhold the entire amount payable to the employee upon his voluntary retirement. 6. For the afore-stated reasons, the appeal is dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ April 22, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {MSN}