HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10771 of 2010 Dated: 09-06-2010 Between: S.R.M. Rangapati Raju. … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Co-operation) & another. … Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10771 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who is a retired employee of the District Co-operative Central Bank, Eluru of West Godavari District, has filed the present writ petition, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of respondents in settling his retirement benefits as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the respondents to release his retirement benefits. When the gratuity amount due to him was not paid, in earlier point of time, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.16408 of 2009, and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the said writ petition, respondents have paid him an amount of Rs.2,92,046/-, on 22nd October 2009, towards gratuity amount due to him. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that further amounts are payable to him on account of leave encashment, GSLI, difference of wages between subsistence allowance and salary during the suspension period, arrears of salary on account of pay revision and interest on gratuity, but the said amounts are not paid to him in view of the instructions issued by the Divisional Co- operative Officer, Kovvur. It is stated that against the petitioner, a surcharge order, as contemplated under Section 60 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, was passed earlier, but on the appeal filed by the petitioner, the said order was set aside and he was also retired from service on 31st of May 2008. It is his grievance that without any reason, respondents have withheld the aforementioned amounts, which are due to be paid to him. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent-Chief Executive Officer of the District Co- operative Central Bank, Eluru of West Godavari District. In the counter-affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner was a Supervisor/Secretary of Muppinavarigudem Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, and he was involved in misappropriation of funds of the society, as such, surcharge order was passed against him. It is stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension before his retirement and he was paid subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% of gross wages for the period from 28th December 2005 to the end of June, 2006, and at the rate of 75% of gross wages from July, 2006 to 19th December 2007. It is also stated that the difference of subsistence allowance payable on account of revision of pay scales, was also paid to the petitioner. In the counter, it is admitted that the amounts due towards leave salary and GSLI, were not paid to the petitioner, in view of pendency of the appeal preferred by him against the surcharge order. With regard to the interest on gratuity amount, the Bank has already filed an application on 19.05.2010 under Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as such, the petitioner cannot claim any interest on the gratuity amount, unless the controlling authority decides the application filed by the respondents. From the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, it is clear that the order of surcharge passed against the petitioner under Section 60 of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, is already set aside by the appellate authority. It is also not in dispute that no adverse order is passed in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and he was also allowed to retire from service. In the absence of any order inflicting punishment in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner is entitled for differential wages between the subsistence allowance and salary, for the period for which, he was under suspension before his retirement. So far as leave encashment and GSLI are concerned, the only reason stated by the learned counsel for respondents for not paying such amounts to the petitioner, is that the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kovvur, has issued instructions not to pay said amounts to the petitioner, in view of the pendency of appeal filed by the petitioner against the surcharge order passed under Section 60 of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. When the petitioner was allowed to retire and in the absence of any adverse order passed in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, there appears no valid reason to withhold the amounts, which are due to be paid to him on account of leave encashment, GSLI and difference in wages between subsistence allowance and salary during the period of suspension before his retirement. It is also not in dispute that the order of surcharge passed against the petitioner under Section 60 of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, is already set aside by the appellate authority. Pursuant to the remand order passed by the appellate authority, no further order is passed against the petitioner. In view of the remand ordered by the appellate authority in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed under Section 60 of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, it is open for the respondents to pursue proceedings under Section 60 of the said Act, but at the same time, on the premise that the said proceedings are pending, the amounts due to the petitioner, cannot be withheld indefinitely, as he has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31st of May 2008. So far as the claim of petitioner with regard to interest on gratuity is concerned, respondents have already filed an application before the controlling authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and hence, no directions can be given in the present writ petition for payment of interest on gratuity. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner, the amounts due to him on account of leave encashment, salary, arrears of salary on account of pay revision, if any, amounts due under GSLI scheme, difference of amount between subsistence allowance and salary during the period of suspension before his retirement. The said amounts shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of pendency of proceedings on the application made by the respondents with regard to interest on gratuity, no direction can be given for payment of such amount. On paying the aforesaid amounts, if there is any difference in calculations, it is open for the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents, and if any such representation is made, respondents shall also look into the same and take appropriate steps accordingly. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th June 2010. kvni/ajr