IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 16343 of 2002 Between: 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Secretary ot Government, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Administration, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 P.V.Krishna Rao, Executive Engineer (R&B), Retired, Gandinagar, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Accounant General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabd. .....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 Certiorari by calling for the records relating to Judgment dt. 10.01.2000 in O.A.No.5004/2000 of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.M.KRISHNA MOHAN RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 16343 of 2002 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of the tribunal dated 10.1.2000 in O.A.No.5004/2000. The 1st respondent herein is the applicant before the tribunal. He filed the above O.A., seeking to set aside G.O.Rt.No.440, Transport Roads and Buildings (Ser.I.2) Department dated 1.6.2000 of the 1st respondent and to issue a consequential direction to release normal pensionary benefits and gratuity with interest on the consequential arrears. The tribunal having relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in U.M.PUTTASWAMY GOWDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA[1] and having observed that the disciplinary proceedings should not be in respect of an event which took place more than four years prior to the retirement and the charge sheet does not show the cause arose more than four years prior to his retirement and therefore, the charge sheet has been held to be against Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, quashed the impugned the G.O. and directed the official respondents to release the pensionary benefits due to the applicant. Having aggrieved by the same, the official respondents therein have filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that the applicant was permitted to retire from service w.e.f. 31.5.1991 on superannuation vide G.O.Ms.No.1345, dated 14.12.1990. Apart from that, the said G.O. does not disclose the pendency of any O.As or the disciplinary proceedings, if any pending against the applicant. But, peculiarly, a memo, dated 11.5.1991 was issued to the applicant calling for explanation as to infructuous expenditure incurred on the work of cyclone shelter at S. Yanam during the period of 1980-82, for which, the applicant submitted a reply on 14.6.1991. The order impugned goes to show that the memo was issued in respect of the event relating to a past period 1980-1982. When the allegation is admittedly of the year 1980-82, it is not known as to what has prevented the authorities from taking any action till 10 years i.e., till the year 1991. Therefore, there is no other go except to infer that he alleged memo is nothing but an endeavour to survive the cause of action under the provisions of section 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Apart from that, the applicant was retired from service in the year 1991 and now, the writ petition is of the year 1999. Already, 17 years elapsed by now without any pensionary benefits to the applicant. In this view of the matter and in view of the provisions of section 9 of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules and in view of the fact that the pensionary benefits of the applicant, have not yet been fully settled, We feel that the tribunal is perfectly justified in passing the order impugned. Hence, the same needs no interference by this Court. This writ petition is devoid of merits and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice S.Ashok Kumar Date: 31st March, 2008 Nn/Gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO:16343 of 2002 (Division Bench Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 31.3.2008 [1] 1989(2) AISLJ